Page No.# 1/2 GAHC030006242026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/161/2026 Sh. Laltluangpuia and 38 Ors. R/o Khankawn Village, Champhai District, Mizoram - 796321 VERSUS Union of India through the Secretary and 6 Ors. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi - 110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Joseph Mangsuanhau Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 4, 5, 6 & 7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA JUDGEMENT 25.08.2026 (S. SAIKIA, J) Heard Mr. Joseph Mangsuanhau, learned counsel for the applicants. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 04 days in preferring the appeal against the impugned order dated 14.07.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 83/2026. The applicants claim to be residents from border areas and not conversant with Page No.# 2/2 the legal requirements as also the limitation period prescribed in preferring an appeal. There are 38 appellants in the accompanying appeal. The appeal is filed through their power of attorney holder. The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that this delay had occurred because of certain technical defects which had come to their notice at the time of filing the appeal and which required correction and as a consequence thereof the unintentional delay of 04 days beyond the limitation prescribed had occurred. The learned counsel submits that this delay is not intentional and deliberate as the appellants are claiming their compensation for the land stated to have been acquired by the respondents. Therefore, it does not serve any purpose for the appellants for causing any undue delay. The learned CGC appears for the respondents submits that she has no objection, if the Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The application for condonation of delay has been perused. The principles laid down by the Courts delineate that prayer for condonation should ordinarily be liberally construed unless there is lack of bonafides or suppression of any material facts. None of these grounds are pressed against the applicants by the respondents nor are the same apparent from the grounds urged. Under such circumstances this Court considers it appropriate to condone the delay of 04 days in filing the accompanying appeal. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed. Registry will register the appeal and listed the same in the next week. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant