Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010042942026 2026:GAU- AS:12415-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/837/2026 SAWARMAL AGARWALLA AND 11 ORS S/O LT. NATHMAL AGARWAL, R/O VILL- NO. 1, KATHI KHUNDA GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI, DIST- SIVSAGAR, ASSAM 2: RATAN AGARWALLA S/O LT. NATHMAL AGARWAL R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHI KHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 3: ANANDA AGARWALLA S/O LT. NATHMAL AGARWAL R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHI KHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 4: LAKHINARAYAN AGARWALLA S/O LATE BANSI DHAR AGARWALLA R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIAKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 5: SMT. BASANTI DEVI W/O LT. NAGARMAL AGARWAL R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIAKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI Page No.# 2/7 DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 6: KRISHNA BANIK S/O LT. MAKHANLAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 7: BISNU BANIK S/O LT. MAKHANLAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 8: SAKTI BANIK S/O LT. MAKHANLAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 9: SUKUMER BANIK S/O LT. MAKHANLAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 10: DIPAK BANIK S/O LT. KANAI LAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 11: PRODEEP BANIK S/O LT. KANAI LAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI Page No.# 3/7 DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSAM 12: PRONOB BANIK S/O LT. KANAI LAL BANIK R/O VILL- NO. 1 KATHIKHUNDA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- SAPEKHATI DIST- SIVSAGAR ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-781001 2:STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DM (LAND REVENUE) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PWD (NH) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSISONER SIVASAGAR DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 6:THE ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER -CUM- LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER SIVASAGAR ASSAM 7:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (NH) DIVISION JORHAT Page No.# 4/7 DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 8:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) SONARI DIST- SIVASAGAR ASSAM 9:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SONARI REVENUE CIRCLE DIST.-SIVASAGAR ASSAM 10:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SAPEKHATI REVENUE CIRCLE SAPEKHATI DISTRICT- SIVSAGAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR GAURAV R DUTTA, MR A R BAROOAH,A NEWAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., GA, ASSAM,SC, PWD,SC, REVENUE BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 28-08-2026 (Arun Dev Choudhury, J) 1. We have heard Mr. G. R. Dutta, learned counsel, for the applicants/appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC for the respondent/opposite party No.1 and Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Sr. Government counsel, for the respondent/opposite party Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 & 10. Page No.# 5/7 2. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants/appellants seeking condonation of the delay of 804 days in preferring the connected writ appeal against the common Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4947/2014 & other connected writ petitions. 3. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties have vehemently objected to the present application. They contend that the grounds of delay are not genuine; it were the appellants who as per the direction of the Court have filed their respective application(s) before the concerned Department for compensation in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and they were well acquainted with the fact that as per the aforesaid common judgment and order, no interest should be paid on the enhanced amount for the period from the date of taking over possession till the date of filing of their respective applications. 4. Learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties further contend that the applicants have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay in preferring the instant appeal and have failed to describe each day’s delay in preferring the condonation application. 5. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the averments made in the application. 6. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially. 7. The objections raised by the learned counsels for the respondents/opposite parties though forcefully advanced do not persuade this Court to reject the prayer for Page No.# 6/7 condonation of delay. The period of delay, does not itself, establish any mala-fide intention or deliberate suppression. What is relevant for the purpose of condonation of delay is not hyper-technical computation of delay, but whether the explanation furnished for the period occasioned inspires confidence and discloses sufficient cause. 8. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants/appellants have sufficiently explained the reasons of delay and have been able to substantiate that reason beyond their control. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona-fide or inaction on the part of the applicants/appellants. 9. Based on the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the applicants/appellants were not diligent or that the delay was intentional. 10. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by the applicants/appellants, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected writ appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona-fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants/appellants. In the absence of gross laches or mala-fide intention attributable to the applicants/appellants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits. 11. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondents by such delay. 12. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. 13. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. 14. Registry shall process the connected Writ Appeal and, if the same is found defect free, list it on 07.10.2026 under the appropriate heading. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Page No.# 7/7 Comparing Assistant