Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010069572026 2026:GAU-AS:8162 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1527/2026 THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (LR) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI. 2: THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR 3: THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/ COLLECTOR DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787057 4: THE CIRCLE OFFICER DHEMAJI REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.- DHEMAJI DISTRICT- DHEMAJI ASSAM. PIN- 787057 VERSUS KANDURA GOWALA AND ANR S/O LATE TANIYA GOWALA, R/O WARD NO. 03, P.S.AND P.O.- DHEMAJI, DIST.- DHEMAJI, PIN- 787057. 2:JIBAN GOWALA S/O LATE GHANA GOWALA R/O WARD NO. 03 P.S.AND P.O.- DHEMAJI DIST.- DHEMAJI PIN- 787057 Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T GOGOI (JR. G.A., ASSAM), Advocate for the Respondent : MR S K SARKAR (FOR CAVEATOR), J BAISHYA (FOR CAVEATOR),MS R KALITA (FOR CAVEATOR),MR. P KOCH (FOR CAVEATOR) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 10.06.2026 Heard Mr. T. Gogoi, learned Junior Government Advocate, appearing for the applicants and also heard Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties. This interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the applicants for condonation of delay of 51 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and order dated 11.11.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji, in L.A. Misc. Case No.16/2016. Mr. Gogoi, leaned counsel for the applicants submits that the judgment was delivered by the learned District Judge, Dhemaji on 11.11.2025 and that the District Commissioner, who was holding the office at the relevant point of time was transferred and thereafter, new Commissioner assumes charge and in the process, the appeal could not be filed in time and the same is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and also there is merit in the appeal and therefore, he has contended to condone the delay and to admit the appeal. Mr. Sarkar submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 51 days in filing the connected appeal. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the Page No.# 3/3 parties and also considering the explanation so put forwarded for the delay of 51 days in preferring the connected appeal, this Court is of the view that the delay is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Now the Registry will proceed to register and number the appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable. In terms of above, the I.A. stands disposed of. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE