Page No.# 1/5 GAHC030004152025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/78/2025 Smt. J.H. Nuchhungi D/o Bawihkiana (L) R/o Thuampui, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:The Secretary Land Revenue and Settlement Department 3:The District Collector/District Magistrat Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. T Lalnunsiama Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 14-07-2025 Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the appropriate writ or order for setting aside the stay order vide No.J.12011/15/2018-DC(C) dated 15.04.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3/District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Champhai District, wherein the Page No.# 2/5 petitioner is prevented from the development of her land covered by ALSC No. 3091/17/09/84 of 1991 located at Champhai. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she has a landed property covered by ALSC No. 3091/17/09/84 of 1991 located at Champhai, Phaizau and that because of the boundary dispute between herself and the owner of the neighboring land Shri. Lalrochhunga Ralte, she has been wrongly reported to construct a residential building within her paddy field. It is the case of the petitioner that she was developing her land by filling the olden ponds situated within her land by sands for better cultivation of her land and in future, she also intended to construct a farm house within her land like other farmers, however the petitioner never intended to construct a residential building as alleged. The District Magistrate vide order dated 11.04.2025 had also detailed an Executive Magistrate to conduct a spot verification, however, though she had no intention to construct a residential building, she received the impugned stay order dated 15.04.2025, stopping her from development of her land with immediate effect under Rule 10(6) and Rule 11(1) of the Mizoram Land Revenue Rules, 2013. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 10(6) of the Mizoram Land Revenue Rules deals with holders of periodic patta, whereas the petitioner is having an Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate vide ALSC No. 3091/17/09/84 of 1991. He further submitted that the petitioner was merely leveling the land as the olden fish pond was filled by sand and that there is no prove of the development of land for construction of the building as alleged. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner vide letter dated 15.05.2025 had submitted a letter to respondent No. 3 requesting him to vacate the said impugned stay order dated 15.04.2025 and to Page No.# 3/5 allow her to cultivate her land which is not considered till date. The learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner is not allowed to cultivate her land during the season for cultivation of crops, she would suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. He further prayed for stay of the impugned order till the disposal of the instant writ petition. 6. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. 7. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State respondents. No need to issue formal notice. 8. This court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has also heard the learned Government Advocate. 9. It is seen that the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 issued by respondent No. 3 i.e., District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Champhai District is to restrain the petitioner from construction of residential houses, mounding of earth other than for cultivation and establishments of go-downs and establishment of building for other purposes which is prohibited, since the paddy field area was declared to be Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and is strictly protected. The impugned order directed the petitioner to immediately stop mounding of earth within Phaizau area (near Pine Hill gate) and the order prohibited and stayed the petitioner from doing any developmental activities with immediate effect. It is however, seen that the petitioner has denied doing any developmental activities and further stated that she was not going to construct any residential Page No.# 4/5 house within the said area. It is the case of the petitioner that if the petitioner is prevented from cultivation of her land, as the cultivating season is almost over, she would suffer from irreparable loss. 10. This court, on considering the nature of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, find that the petitioner had also submitted a letter for revocation of the stay order No.J.12011/15/2018-DC(C) and clarification, in her letter dated 15.05.2025 to which the respondent No. 3 has not responded till date. This court thus find it appropriate that the respondent No. 3/District Collector/Deputy Commissioner should consider the letter submitted by the petitioner dated 15.05.2025 by verifying whether the refilling of the excavated pit within her paddy field is for agriculture purpose or not. It is also noted that the petitioner has specifically stated that she has no intention of constructing a residential house within the said land. Thus, this court is of the view that even if she were to construct a farm house/agricultural house as stated by her in future, such construction of ‘temporary’ farm house/jhum hut should not be beyond the permitted norms within an Agricultural Land Settlement Certificate. 11. Accordingly, this court find it appropriate to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.04.2025 to the extent that the petitioner should not be restrained from the cultivation of her paddy field or the cultivation of her land during the season for cultivation, which could affect her livelihood. The respondent No. 3 should also consider and dispose of her letter dated 15.05.2025 by verifying the correctness of her ‘clarification’ expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receiving a Page No.# 5/5 certified true copy of this order. 12. WP(C) No. 78/2025 thus stands disposed of as above at the motion stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant