Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030005142025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/129/2025 State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department, Aizawl VERSUS Sh HL Awithanga and 43 Ors. R/o Saiphai, Kolasib District, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R43 & R44 Linked Case : LA.App./8/2025 State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram PWD Department Aizawl Mizoram VERSUS Sh HL Awithanga and 43 Ors. R/o Saiphai 2:HL Awithanga R/o Saiphai 3:R.Lalramnghaka Page No.# 2/6 R/o Saiphai 4:Lalramnghaka R/o Saiphai 5:Lalfakawma R/o Saiphai 6:T.Zakunga R/o Saiphai 7:Lalengzama R/o Saiphai 8:Huanmawia R/o Saiphai 9:H.Thanzauva R/o Saiphai 10:H.Thanzauva R/o Saiphai 11:Zuimawii R/o Saiphai 12:Remruata R/o Saiphai 13:Vanlalhlua R/o Saiphai 14:Thanhmingliana R/o Saiphai 15:Thangchuailova R/o Saiphai 16:R.Khumthanga R/o Saiphai 17:Lalhmingmawia R/o Saiphai 18:Suanhauva R/o Saiphai 19:Rangchawngi Page No.# 3/6 R/o Saiphai 20:Lalmawia R/o Saiphai 21:Lalthlengliana R/o Saiphai 22:Hlanthanga R/o Saiphai 23:Lalhlanthanga R/o Saiphai 24:HL Banliana R/o Saiphai 25:Lalbanliana R/o Saiphai 26:HL Banliana R/o Saiphai 27:Joseph Lalduhsaka R/o Saiphai 28:Pahlira R/o Saiphai 29:Zonunsanga R/o Saiphai 30:Nghakkhawlama R/o Saiphai 31:Zoneiha R/o Saiphai 32:Laldawngliana R/o Saiphai 33:Lalhmahruaia R/o Saiphai 34:Lalduhthanga R/o Saiphai 35:H.Lalramngaia Page No.# 4/6 R/o Saiphai 36:Lalsanghluna R/o Saiphai 37:Lalchhandama R/o Saiphai 38:Partnership Mission Society R/o Saiphai 39:Lalvanneia R/o Saiphai 40:Sangthanga R/o Saiphai 41:Lalthansanga R/o Saiphai 42:Daisela R/o Saiphai 43:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department Aizawl 44:The District Collector Kolasib Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA Mizoram for R43 & R44 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 18.11.2025 Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. Page No.# 5/6 Lalnunhlui, leaned Govt. Advocate who submits that the instant appeal is being filed by the State of Mizoram/PWD Department and therefore being the Govt. Advocate she does not have anything to say in the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that The Land revenue & Settlement Department and the District Collector have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 11 & 12 only as pro-forma respondents since the appeal has been preferred by the PWD Department. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that though they have made an attempt to serve notice upon the private respondent Nos. 1- 42 through dasti mode, the private respondents have refused to accept the notice and affidavit to that affect has also been filed. On considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, This court find it appropriate to proceed with the interlocutory application for the condonation of delay of 140 days in preferring the connected appeal in LA. Appl. No. 4 of 2025. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the grounds for the delay of 140 days has been explained in detail at para 3 (I -XXIV) and that the main grounds was due to the steps taken by the concern appellants for consultation and coming to decision to file the appeal to the appropriate procedure. He further submitted that there was further delay since the applicants has also tried to negotiate and settle the matter outside the court with the private Page No.# 6/6 respondents regarding the amount of compensation which according to the appellants was too high and not as per law. He further submitted that, further delay was caused due to closure of the High Court during the winter vacation & also time taken to engaged a different counsel who is not the Govt. Advocate to take up the matter. This court has perused the explanation given by the learned counsel for the applicant at para 3 ( I – XXIV) and finds that the learned counsel for the applicant has given a satisfactory explanation for the delay of 140 days delay in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment & Order, dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court , Kolasib District in LA case No. 16/2015. Accordingly, this court find it fit to condone the delay of 140 days, which this court find is not due to negligence on the part of the applicant. I.A No. 129/2025 thus stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant