Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030001522026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/66/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (NHIDCL) and Anr. NHIDCL HQ First Floor Tower A World Trade Center Nauroji Nagar New Delhi - 110029 2: The General Manager (P) NHIDCL TBC Villa College Veng Near District Court Kolasib Kolasib District Mizoram VERSUS TK Thanga and Anr. S/o TK Siama (L) R/o Rengtekawn Kolasib Kolasib District Mizoram 2:The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) Kolasib District Kolasib Page No.# 2/8 Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubam Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R 1 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/52/2026 National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL) and Anr. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, represented by Managing Director (P), NHIDCL HQ, First Floor, Tower A, World Trade Center, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi-110029 2: The General Manager (P VERSUS Sh. T.K. Thanga and Anr. R/o Rengtekawn, Kolasib District 2:Competent Authority for Land Acquisitio Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shubham Paliwal Advocate for the Respondent : Mr J C Lalnunsanga for R1 Linked Case : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Shubham Paliwal, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jonathan Lalrintluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. Page No.# 3/8 2. By way of this Writ Petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the Orders dated 01.04.2026, 16.04.2026 & 11.05.2026, passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, Mizoram in CMA No. 04/2026, arising out of the disposed off Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the Writ Petitioner (NHIDCL) was to construct a road on the land of the respondent No. 1. In this respect, the respondent No. 2 had issued an Award dated 03.12.2024, under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, for payment of compensation for the acquired 743 trees standing on the land of the respondent No. 1. 4. Being aggrieved by the fact that the 3G Award had left out 1257 trees, the respondent no. 1 took recourse to Section 3G (5) of the Act, for considering the claim of the respondent by an Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator thereafter registered the claim of the respondent no. 1 as Arbitration Case No. NH/306/KLB/28/ARB/2025 and after hearing the parties, passed Arbitral Award dated 03/06/2025, wherein it directed reassessment and payment of compensation for an additional 1257 full grown Areca/Betel Nut trees, beyond the 743 trees that had already been included in the Award made under 3G. 5. The Arbitrator in his Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025, had held that the Page No.# 4/8 respondent No. 1 was entitled to be paid compensation for 2000 trees instead of only 743 trees, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 2, i.e. the competent authority for land acquisition (CALA), Kolasib District, had admitted it’s mistake in awarding compensation for only 743 trees and had affirmed that the Betel Nut trees for which compensation was to be paid was 2000. As such, the respondent No. 2 was directed to assess the amount of compensation payable for the additional 1257 full-grown Betel Nut trees, as per the rate notified by the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram. The interest @9% was also to be paid in terms of Section 3H(5) of the NH Act, 1956. 6. The appellant (NHIDCL) being aggrieved by the Arbitral Award dated 03/06/2025, put the same to challenge under Section 34 of the Act before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl Judicial District, Kolasib, where it was registered as Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025. 7. Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025 was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 03/11/2025 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by directing the NHIDCL to disburse the assessed amount of compensation for the additional 1257 full-grown Betel Nut/Areca Nut trees with statutory benefits, in terms of the Arbitral award, within one month from 03/11/2025. 8. The NHIDCL thereafter filed an application, vide CMA no. 4/2026, in the Page No.# 5/8 disposed of Arbitration Petition no. 2/2025, before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, by making the following prayers:- "(a) Grant of extension of time to the applicant to comply with the payment direction contained in order dated 03/11/2025, and (b) Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice." 9. The learned Additional District And Sessions Judge, Kolasib, thereafter passed order dated 24/02/2026 in CMA no. 4/2026, as follows:- "Upon consideration of the submissions, this Court finds it proper to pass order as below: 1) Extension of time prayed for by the applicant is granted for a period of 30 days as per section 148 CPC, 1908. 2) In case of failure to comply with order passed by this Court dated 03.11.2025 by NHIDCL, the law will take its own course. 3) The applicant-NHIDCL is directed to submit the report about compliance of the said order dated 03.11.2025 on or before 01.04.2026. Fix 01.04.2026 for submission of compliance report by NHIDCL. Give copy of this Order to all concerned." 10. In view of the order dated 24/02/2026 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, in CMA No. 4/2026, arising out of the disposed of Page No.# 6/8 Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, whereby 30 days extension of time had been granted for making payment, in terms of the judgment and order dated 03/11/2025 passed in Arbitration petition No. 2/2025, the counsel for the respondent no. 1 prayed for withdrawal of Execution Petition No. 1/2026 arising out of Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, with liberty to file the same afresh, in case NHIDCL failed to make the necessary payment. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, vide order dated 24/02/2026, allowed the withdrawal of Execution Petition No. 1/2026 with liberty to file afresh, if the situation demanded. 11. Instead of the writ petitioners paying the compensation amount to the respondent No. 1, the petitioners put to challenge the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib in Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025 by way of this appeal. As the writ petitioner did not pay the compensation amount as per the above impugned judgment and order, the Civil Court passed orders in CMA No. 4/2026 directing the writ petitioners to produce documents and also for personal appearance of the writ petitioner No. 2. The writ petitioners have thus filed the present Writ Petition, praying for setting aside the Orders dated 01.04.2026, 16.04.2026 & 11.05.2026, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib, Mizoram in CMA No. 04/2026, arising out of the disposed of Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025. Page No.# 7/8 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the above Orders dated 01.04.2026, 16.04.2026 & 11.05.2026 passed in CMA No. 04/2026, on the ground that certain coercive directions had been issued to the petitioners, for producing documents and to be personally present in the Court in relation to CMA No. 04/2026, which according to them, was not permissible in law. In this regard, they have relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kinnari Mullick Vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 328 . 13. It is settled law that judicial orders of the Civil Court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors., reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423. 14. The above being said, the Supreme Court in the above case also held that Article 227 of the Constitution can be used for challenging Judicial orders in cases of grave injustice or where a failure of justice has been occasioned, such as when a Court or Tribunal assumes a jurisdiction it does not have, or exceeds it’s jurisdiction. On considering the fact that the learned Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib has directed the petitioners to produce copies of official communications and to appear before him in CMA No. 04/2026, after Page No.# 8/8 the Court became functus officio, with the issuance of the Order dated 24.02.2026 in CMA No. 4/2026, the subsequent orders issued were uncalled for. The issue of payment or non-payment of the compensation amount in terms of the impugned judgment and order passed in Arbitration Petition No. 02/2025 and CMA No. 04/2026 could have been pursued by the respondent No. 1 by way of an execution petition. There was no need for the learned Civil Court to act like an Executing Court. 15. On considering all the above, this Court is of the view that the orders passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolasib dated 01.04.2026, 16.04.2026 & 11.05.2026 in CMA No. 4/2026 are not sustainable. This Court is also the view that the CMA No. 4/2026 should have been closed after issuance of the Order dated 24.06.2024. Accordingly, the impugned Orders dated 01.04.2026, 16.04.2026 & 11.05.2026 passed in CMA No. 4/2026, arising out of the disposed of Arbitration Petition No. 2/2025, are hereby set aside. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant