Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030006242025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/105/2025 Sh. R. Thangmawia (L) r/b Raymond Zothangliana and 20 Ors. R/o Electric Veng, Aizawl. 2: Smt. Zothankimi 3: Smt. Sangluri 4: Smt. Vanlalhriati 5: Sh. C. Lalruatkima 6: Sh. K. Chalmana 7: Sh. R. Thangluaia 8: Smt. Thantluangi 9: Smt. Hrangkimi 10: Smt. F. Lalsangzuali 11: Sh. Vanlalmuanzova 12: Sh. Vanlalremruata Page No.# 2/7 13: Sh. Vanlalruata 14: Smt. Vanlalremi 15: Sh. Zasanga 16: Smt. Marian Lalawmpuii 17: Sh. H. Thangmawia 18: Sh. Lalfakzuala 19: Smt. R. Vanlalhlimpuii 20: Smt. Ethel Lalsangliani Sailo 21: Smt. Sapzarlian VERSUS The Union of India and 3 Ors. R/b the Secretary, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Govt. of India, 256-A Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi- 110001. 2:The Northeast Frontier Railway r/b Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) N.F Railway 3:The Deputy Commissioner cum Competent Authority Aizawl District 4:Dr. Lalzirmawia Chhangte IAS (Rtd. Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr A.R. Malhotra Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC for R1 & 2 Page No.# 3/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that respondent No. 3 has been served notice by way of Dasti as permitted by this Court and an affidavit to that effect has been filed. 2. At this stage, Mr. Daniel Hrahsel, learned counsel appears on behalf of Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel and submits that Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent No. 3 and will be filing her power during the course of the day. Accordingly, notice is accepted to be complete on respondent No. 3. Mrs. Mary L. Khiangte, learned counsel to file the Vakalatnama during the course of the day. 3. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 submits that she is yet to receive instructions in the matter and therefore prays for 3 (three) weeks time. 4. On the other hand, Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only issue in the instant case is in respect of appointment of a new Arbitrator, since the earlier appointed Arbitrator had demitted office by Page No.# 4/7 superannuation from service. Considering the limited issue involved, the matter is taken up for disposal. 5. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioners are land owners, whose lands have been acquired vide Award No. 3/2019 for the purpose of execution, maintenance, management and operation of the Special Railway Project namely Bairabi – Sairang New BG Railway Line Project (51.38 km) in Aizawl District, Mizoram. The petitioners filed the Arbitration Case No. 1/2022 before the respondent No. 4, which was contested by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Thereafter, the Arbitrator, vide common Order dated 08.03.2024 had concluded that the amount of compensation fixed by the respondent No. 3 does not require revision. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) and the same was registered as Arbitration Application No. 8/2024 by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl. The Court then, vide Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2025 remanded the matter back to the respondent No. 4 for proceeding afresh and to re-adjudicate the matter within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the order. Despite the same, since the matter has not proceeded afresh, the petitioners are before this Court. Page No.# 5/7 6. In the earlier round of the arbitration, an Arbitrator namely Dr. Lalzirmawia Chhangte was appointed as the Arbitrator, but then, he has demitted the office on account of his superannuation from service on 31.08.2025 and therefore, he has expressed his inability to be the Arbitrator at this stage. 7. It may be stated herein that under the Land Acquisition (Special Railway Projects) Rules, 2016 (Rules of 2016), more particularly Rule 3, the Central Government is to appoint an Officer of the rank of a Gazetted Officer of the State Government as an Arbitrator by way of Notification for the purposes of Sub-Section (6) of Section 20-F of the Railways Act, 1989. According to the petitioners, the earlier Arbitrator was accordingly appointed under the said provision. 8. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention to the provisions of Section 14 & 15 of the Arbitration Act. Referring to Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, he submits that the mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate and he shall be substituted by another Arbitrator, if (a) he becomes de jure or de facto unable to perform his functions or for other reasons fails to act without undue delay; and (b) he withdraws from his office or the parties agree to the termination of his mandate. He also draws the attention of this Court to Section 15(1) of the Arbitration Act, which provides for Page No.# 6/7 termination of mandate and substitution of Arbitrator, in addition to the circumstances referred to in Section 13 or Section 14. It provides that the mandate of an Arbitrator shall terminate (a) where he withdraws from office for any reason; or (b) by or pursuant to agreement of the parties. Further reference is made under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that where the mandate of an Arbitrator terminates, a substitute Arbitrator shall be appointed according to the Rules that were applicable to the appointment of the Arbitrator being replaced. 9. From the above provision, it is clear that it is for the Railway Authorities to act in accordance with the Arbitration Act and the Rules of 2016 for appointment of a fresh Arbitrator provided thereunder. No materials have been brought to the notice of this Court to show that the respondent authorities have preferred an appeal or review against the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge-II, Aizawl, by which the matter was remanded back to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication. 10. The above being the position, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities concerned, more particularly respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to appoint a fresh Arbitrator in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within the outer limit of 6 (six) weeks from the date Page No.# 7/7 of receipt of a certified copy of this order, for disposal of Arbitration Case No. 1/2022. JUDGE Comparing Assistant