Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005632025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/149/2025 State of Mizoram r/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department Aizawl VERSUS Smt. Lalsangliani W/o Jimmy Vanlalruata (L) R/o Chanmari, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. C Lalfakzuala Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. C Lalhruaitluanga BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 03.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Order XLI Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 156 Page No.# 2/4 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib in L.A. Case No. 32/2015. 3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2024, the learned trial Court, inter alia, directed payment of enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.75/- per sq. ft. on the area of land acquired as reflected in Award No.3 of 2014 dated 23.04.2015, together with compensation towards damages to crops, with a multiplier of two, besides solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of pronouncement of the award. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the applicant has preferred the connected appeal. However, there being a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal, the present application has been preferred seeking condonation of the said delay. 5. The explanation furnished by the applicant, in substance, is that although the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 17.12.2024, a copy thereof was received in the Personal Branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, Public Works Department only on 03.03.2025. Thereafter, the judgment and award was forwarded through the departmental hierarchy and was received in the PWD (Technical) on 05.03.2025 and in the office of the Engineer-in-Chief on 06.03.2025. The matter was thereafter examined by the concerned Legal Officer, who sought relevant documents and considered the feasibility of filing an appeal. Meetings were subsequently held and further documents were requisitioned from the concerned authorities. Page No.# 3/4 6. It is further stated that the applicant thereafter took steps for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned judgment and award, which was applied for on 13.05.2025 and furnished on 14.05.2025. In the meantime, the question of engagement of counsel was under consideration at the departmental and Government level. Approval for engagement of the present counsel was ultimately conveyed on 05.06.2025 and the engagement was communicated to the counsel on 06.06.2025. Thereafter, the connected matters concerning the Serkhan-Bagha Road were examined, the appeal was drafted and finalised, and the present application was filed on 19.08.2025. 7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor occasioned by any negligence on the part of the applicant. He submits that the matter involved consideration at various levels of the Government and that the applicant had been taking steps from time to time for obtaining the necessary records, obtaining legal opinion, securing approval for engagement of counsel and preparing the appeal. He accordingly seeks condonation of the delay. 8. Mr. M. S. Hmingthanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in his usual fairness, submits that he has received no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. 9. Having considered the matter, this Court finds that the explanation furnished by the applicant, when considered as a whole, discloses a continuing course of steps taken after the impugned judgment and award came to the notice of the concerned authorities. It is true that the explanation reflects considerable movement of the matter through different departmental levels and that the entire period of delay cannot be attributed to any single intervening event. Nevertheless, the applicant has Page No.# 4/4 placed on record the sequence of departmental actions, including examination of the case, collection of records, obtaining of the certified copy, consideration of engagement of counsel, obtaining of Government approval and preparation of the appeal. 10. The fact that the applicant is a Government department and that the decision to prefer an appeal and to engage counsel necessarily involved consideration at different administrative levels may be taken into account while examining the question of sufficient cause. At the same time, such administrative procedure cannot, by itself, furnish an automatic justification for condonation of delay. In the present case, however, the explanation, viewed in its entirety and in the absence of any opposition from the respondent, is found sufficient to constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay. 11. This Court is therefore satisfied that the delay of 156 days was not occasioned by any deliberate or wilful inaction and that sufficient cause has been shown for the applicant’s failure to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period. The applicant should, accordingly, be afforded an opportunity to have the connected appeal considered on its merits rather than being shut out at the threshold on the ground of limitation. 12. Accordingly, the delay of 156 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 13. The interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant