Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030000552025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/16/2025 Smt. Lalmuansangi L/R of Singhmuaka, Chanmari, Aizawl VERSUS Sh. C. Lalhrangluaia and 6 Ors. S/o Chawngkanglova (L), Chanmari West, Aizawl 2:The State of Mizoram 3:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram 4:The Director 5:The Assistant Settlement Officer-1 6:Sh. C. Lalhmingthanga 7:Sh. Lianchungnung Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : RFA/16/2013 C Lalhrangluaia Page No.# 2/3 Chanmari West Aizawl VERSUS State of Mizoram and 6 Ors Aizawl 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director Land revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl 4:The ASO Land Revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 10.03.2025 Heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. The present interlocutory application has been instituted by the applicant/respondent, to restrain the opposite party no. 1/appellant from making any further construction and/or development on the suit property. Page No.# 3/3 The learned counsel for the applicant/respondent submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, the opposite party no. 1/appellant has been taking active steps towards construction of a house within the suit land and accordingly, in the event the same is allowed to be proceeded, the interest of the applicant/respondent shall be prejudiced. To the above submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant has submitted that he had carried out certain renovation works with regard to the structure already existing in the said suit land and had not made any new construction therein. He further submits that the renovation works as undertaken by him has also been stopped and also undertakes not to carry out any fresh construction activity over the suit land in question, during the pendency of the present appeal. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant, the present interlocutory application need not be detained any further and the same is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo, as on today, with regard to the suit land. With the above observations and directions, the present interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant