Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030007692024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/203/2024 The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and Anr. R/b the Managing Director, 3rd Floor, PTI Building 4, Parliament Street, New Delhi- 11001 2: The Executive Directo VERSUS Sh T.Zahluta @Zahluta and 6 Ors. S/o T.Zahnuka (L), R/o Bungtlang, Serchhip District, Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram 3:Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 4:Director 5:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)-cum-Deputy Commissioner 6:The Union of India 7:The Regional Office Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T Lalzekima Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R2-R4 Page No.# 2/6 Linked Case : WA/19/2024 The National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) R/b the Managing Director 3rd Floor PTI Building 4 Parliament Street New Delhi-11001 2: The Executive Director National Highways and Infrastructures Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) 3rd Floor T-86 Tuikhuahtlang Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh T.Zahluta @Zahluta and 6 Ors. S/o T.Zahnuka (L) R/o Bungtlang Serchhip District Mizoram 2:The State of Mizoram R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department 4:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department Govt. of Mizoram 5:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)-cum-Deputy Commissioner Serchhip District Mizoram 6:The Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi-110001 7:The Regional Officer Page No.# 3/6 Govt. of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Regional Office (Civil) H.No.5 Rajgarh Road Chanmari Guwahati-781003 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr T Lalzekima Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R2-R4 ORDER B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 12.03.2025 ( Michael Zothankhuma, J ) Heard Ms. Lalremruati Renthlei, learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 1 and Mr. Benjamin Lalthlamuana, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. This is an application for condonation of delay of 359 days in filing the appeal against the Order dated 16.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No.104/2023, by which the respondent No. 5 has been directed to make an appropriate assessment of the value of the respondent No. 1’s land, which was effected due to construction of a road. The respondent No. 5 was thereafter to forward the Page No.# 4/6 assessment to the applicants, who were to deposit the assessed amount for onward disbursement to the respondent No. 1. The case of the applicants, on the other hand, is that the construction of the road has been completed and the same has not touched the land of the respondent No. 1. 3. The counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in filing the appeal has been caused due to the time taken for being furnished a certified true copy of the Order dated 16.11.2024 which was applied on 26.11.2024 and issued on 29.11.2024. Thereafter, the delay in filing the appeal was due to the clarifications sought for, Vide letter dated 13.12.2023, by the Project Monitoring Unit, Lunglei from the competent authority (CALA)-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Serchhip District, with regard to the land documents of the respondent No. 1. 4. As CALA did not respond immediately to the request, a number of days were lost. The applicants thereafter filed WA No. 13/2024 on 21.06.2024, challenging the impugned Order dated 16.11.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 104/2023 and the same was listed on 19.11.2024. However, due to some technical error in the Memo of appeal, the writ appeal was allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty being given to file afresh, vide Order dated 19.11.2024. 5. The applicants thereafter filed the present appeal after making necessary corrections. The applicants thus pray that the delay of 359 days Page No.# 5/6 which has occurred due to the above reasons, should be condoned. 6. Mr. H. Zodinsanga, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that no day to day explanation has been given by the applicants for the delay in filing the present appeal and as such, no sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 7. We have seen the reasons for the delay and the fact that the applicant had earlier filed WA No. 13/2024 against the impugned Order passed in WP(C) No. 104/2023. WA No. 13/2024 had been allowed to be withdrawn vide Order dated 19.11.2024, with liberty being given to file afresh. The present appeal has thereafter been filed within 28 days from the date the applicant was allowed to withdraw WA No. 13/2024 with liberty to file the appeal afresh. Due to the above reasons, we are of the view that sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal has been made out. The grounds of appeal, as stated by the applicants counsel, leads us to believe that if the application for condonation of the delay is refused, the same could cause a great miscarriage of justice. As such, the delay should be condoned, which would be in consonance with the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of Nagaland – vs- Lipok AO & Ors, 2005 3 SCC 752. In view of the reasons stated above, the delay of 359 days is condoned. Page No.# 6/6 8. I.A is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant