Shanti Kumar Chakma and 575 Ors v. The Union of India and 11 Ors

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030002892024

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/81/2024 Shanti Kumar Chakma and 575 Ors. S/o Surthar Rankan Chakma, R/o Chotapansury

VERSUS The Union of India and 11 Ors. R/b the Secretary to the govt. of India Ministry of Home Affairs Department of Border Management BM-III, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001 2:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department

Govt. of Mizoram Aizawl 3:The Director Land Revenue and Settlement Department

Govt. of Mizoram AIzawl 4:The asst. Settlement Officer - II Directorate of Land Revenue and Settlement Department

Govt. of Mizoram Aizaw Page No.# 2/3 For the applicants : Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Zairemsangpuii, C.G.C. For respondent Nos.1 to 5 Ms. Vanneihsiami, Govt. Advocate For respondent Nos.8 & 9

– B E F O R E – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

06-09-2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) The matter comes up for consideration of IA(Civil) No.81/2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with the prayer for condonation of delay of 204 days in filing the connected writ appeal. It appears that the notices of the interlocutory application have been served upon all the respondents except respondent No.7. It is to be noticed that the respondent No.7 is the Deputy General Manager, National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. whereas notice upon the respondent No.6, i.e. the Chairman and Managing Director of the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd has already been served. Taking into consideration the fact that notice upon the respondent No.6 has already been served, we deem it appropriate to waive the service upon the respondent No.7, who is the Director of the respondent No.6 Corporation. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned Central Government Counsel is appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Ms. Vanneihsiami, learned Government Advocate is appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.8 and 9. Page No.# 3/3 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the averments made in this application, we deem it appropriate to allow the prayer for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay of 204 days in filing the connected writ appeal is condoned. The interlocutory application is disposed of. Let the connected writ appeal be listed for admission in the next week.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant