1 Serial No. 04 Regular List HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG MC(CRAPPL) No. 1 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 Project Director, National High Way Authority of India, Guwahati. …..Applicant -Versus- 1. State of Meghalaya, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue Department to the Government of Meghalaya, Shillong-793001. 2. The Collector, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh, Meghalaya-793102. 3. Smti. Savita Deorah Wife of Late A.K. Deorah Resident of Baridua Village, Ri-Bhoi District Meghalaya-7893101. 4. Shri. Ashish Deorah Son of Late Ashok Kumar Deorah, Resident of Baridua Village, Ri-Bhoi District Meghalaya-7893101. …..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Yes/No 2025:MLHC:753 2 Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. F. Bareh, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. I. Lyngwa, GA Ms. S. Laloo, GA (For R 1 & 2) Ms. M. Hazarika, Sr. Adv. with Ms. S. Newar, Adv. (For R 3 & 4) ORDER (ORAL) 1. Heard Ms. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the applicant who has submitted that the applicant has filed the cross objection/appeal in the ongoing appeal being FA No. 2 of 2022, the appellant therein being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judicial Officer, Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh in LA Case No. 109 of 2015. 2. The only ground set forth by the applicant herein for the delay of about 925 days in preferring the related appeal is the fact that in course of the proceedings in the said FA No. 2 of 2022 it came to light that the Collector, who had set the reference case in motion while referring the matter to the learned Special Judicial Officer had failed to also annex or file along with it copy of the award. This, has prejudiced the case of the applicant who has accordingly preferred the related appeal. It is prayed that the delay of 925 days be condoned and the cross objection/appeal be brought on record to allow the applicant who has already been arrayed as party respondent in FA No. 2 of 2022 to present their side of the case. 3. Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein and who is the appellant in FA No. 2 of 2022 has made no strong objection as far as the prayer made and has instead insisted that if 2025:MLHC:753 3 the cross objection/appeal is allowed to be brought on board, the matter may be taken up expeditiously considering the fact that in the meantime the respondent Nos. 3 and 4/appellant has already concluded their argument. 4. Ms. I. Lyngwa, learned GA appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has also indicated that there is no objection on the part of the Government/Collector if the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 5. Accordingly, on consideration of the submission made, particularly the concession made by the learned counsels for the respondents herein, this Court in the interest of justice, is inclined to allow the prayer made by the applicant herein. 6. The delay in filing the cross objection/appeal of 925 days is hereby condoned and the said cross objection/appeal is brought on record. It is learnt that copy of the same has already been served upon the respective parties herein, as such, no formal notice is required to be issued in this regard. 7. Application disposed of. No costs. Judge 2025:MLHC:753 Digitally signed by TIPRILYNTI KHARKONGOR Date: 2025.08.22 18:13:42 IST