Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030001912025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/51/2025 The Executive Director (Projects) NHIDCL, and 2 Ors. 3rd Floor, T-86, Tuikhuahtlang, Aizawl 2: The Govt. of India 3: The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL VERSUS Smt T.Lalramchhuani and 8 Ors. D/o Late T.Malsawma, R/o Keifang Vengsang, Saitual District, Mizoram 2:Sh Ralmanliana 3:Sh John MS Dawnga 4:Sh K.Vanlalruata (L) 5:Sh Martin Lalthamawia 6:Sh T.Robert Rohmingliana 7:The State of Mizoram 8:The Secetary 9:Deputy Commissioner cum Competent Authorit Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T Lalzekima Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R7 & R8 Page No.# 2/4 JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : 16-06-2025 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J) 1. Heard Mr. P. J. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 as well as Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicants under Rule 2(2) of the Chapter-VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules for condoning the delay of 124 days in filing the connected review petition in connection with the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed by this Court in WA No. 10/2024. 3. The learned senior counsel for the applicants has submitted that the present applicants were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in the WP(C) No. 106/2021. The said writ petition was disposed by a judgment and order dated 05.03.2024 whereby the writ petitioners were found entitled to receive compensation as per Draft Award dated 17.04.2021 prepared by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). It was also directed that the aggrieved party were given liberty for approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, if aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. It was further directed that the amount which was determined as per award dated 18.08.2021 shall be deposited before the CALA within one month from the date of application made under Section 3G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956. 4. Being aggrieved with the said order, the present applicants had filed an appeal which was registered as WA No. 10/2024. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 24.10.2024, whereby no infirmity was Page No.# 3/4 found in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. However, the judgment of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent that the Central Government was directed to deposit the compensation determined by the Draft Award dated 17.04.2021 before the Competent Authority within 30 days from the date of the judgment in the writ appeal. 5. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicants that in pursuant to the impugned judgment dated 24.10.2024 passed in WA No. 10/2024, the present applicants filed an arbitration application before the Arbitrator, Land Acquisition, Mizoram, Ministry of Road and Transport and Highways (MORTH), Government of India on 03.12.2024. The applicants also preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 057/2025 before the Supreme Court of India on 22.01.2025, however, on 17.02.2024, the same was withdrawn with the liberty to seek modification in the impugned judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the reason for delay in preferring the instant review petitioner has been explained in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the application for condonation of delay. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has submitted that the said respondents have already filed written affidavit-in-opposition against the review petition filed by the present applicants wherein they have taken the plea that the present review application is not maintainable. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants has also raised his objection regarding condonation of delay of 124 days in preferring the connected review application. The State respondents i.e., the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have not opposed the application for condonation of delay. 9. Rule 2(2) of Chapter 5A of the Gauhati High Court Rules provides that the Division Bench may condone the delay in filing of any appeal, if good and sufficient Page No.# 4/4 cause is shown. 10. In the instant case also, the applicants were allowed to withdraw the SLP filed by them before the Apex Court with liberty that they may approach this Court for modification of the impugned judgment. 11. The reasons for delay cited by the applicants in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the application for condonation of delay appears to be good and sufficient cause which prevented the applicants from preferring the connected review application within the prescribed period of limitation. 12. It is settled proposition of law that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted and in the instant case also there appears to be no lack of bona fide or willful adoption of delaying tactics by the applicants in approaching this Court beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 13. Hence, we consider that ends of justice would be served if the delay of 124 days in preferring the connected review petition is condoned. Accordingly, we condone the said delay. 14. Let the review petition be listed for hearing after two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry. 15. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant