Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005552025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/145/2025 The State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Public Works Department, Aizawl VERSUS Sh Thanmawia S/o VL Hmuaka, R/o Thingthelh Village, Kolasib District 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 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order Page No.# 2/4 dated 17.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib in L.A. Case No. 27/2015. 3. By the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2024, the learned trial Court, inter alia, directed payment of compensation towards the land acquired, compensation for loss of crops, compensation on the basis of a multiplier of two, 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 is a delay of 156 days in filing the appeal, for which the present application has been filed seeking condonation thereof. 5. The applicant has set out, in some detail, the circumstances which, according to it, occasioned the delay. The impugned judgment and award was received in the personal branch of the Commissioner and Secretary, PWD only on 21.02.2025, and thereafter the matter was processed at various levels in the PWD and the Office of the Engineer-in- Chief. The matter was also considered by the concerned Legal Officer and, subsequently, in meetings held by the Department. Certain records and documents considered necessary for examining the feasibility of an appeal were sought from the concerned authorities. Thereafter, steps were taken for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned judgment and award, and for engagement of counsel. Approval for engagement of the present counsel was ultimately conveyed on 05.06.2025, following which the counsel examined the matter along with other connected cases and proceeded to prepare the appeal and the present application. Page No.# 3/4 6. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither intentional nor occasioned by any deliberate negligence on the part of the applicant. He submits that the matter involved consideration at various administrative and legal levels and that the applicant has acted bona fide in pursuing the matter. He accordingly seeks condonation of the delay. 7. 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. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the averments made in the application, this Court is of the view that the explanation furnished by the applicant, when considered in its entirety, constitutes sufficient cause for the delay in preferring the appeal. The delay appears to have occasioned in the course of inter-departmental processing, examination of the impugned judgment and award, obtaining relevant records and taking a decision regarding engagement of counsel. The applicant has also explained the subsequent steps taken after engagement of counsel leading to preparation and filing of the appeal. The explanation, viewed as a whole, does not disclose any deliberate or mala fide inaction on the part of the applicant. 9. It is also pertinent to bear in mind that the question at this stage is not the merits of the grounds sought to be urged in the appeal, but whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for the delay. Having regard to the explanation furnished, and particularly in the absence of any opposition from the respondent, this Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Page No.# 4/4 10. Accordingly, the delay of 156 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 11. The interlocutory application stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant