Interlocutory application in a pending regular first appeal seeking restraint on construction over suit land. The appellant undertook to stop renovation and make no fresh construction, and the court directed both parties to maintain status quo regarding the suit land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC030000552025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/16/2025
Smt. Lalmuansangi L/R of Singhmuaka, Chanmari, Aizawl
VERSUS
Sh. C. Lalhrangluaia and 6 Ors. S/o Chawngkanglova (L), Chanmari West, Aizawl 2:The State of Mizoram
3:The Secretary to the Government of Mizoram
4:The Director
5:The Assistant Settlement Officer-1
6:Sh. C. Lalhmingthanga
7:Sh. Lianchungnung
Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : RFA/16/2013
C Lalhrangluaia
Page No.# 2/3
Chanmari West Aizawl
VERSUS
State of Mizoram and 6 Ors Aizawl
2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl
3:The Director Land revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl
4:The ASO Land Revenue and Settlement Department Mizoram Aizawl
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr B Lalramenga Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Dinari T Azyu for R7
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT / ORDER
Date : 10.03.2025
Heard Mr. Victor L Ralte, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.
The present interlocutory application has been instituted by the applicant/respondent, to restrain the opposite party no. 1/appellant from making any further construction and/or development on the suit property.
Page No.# 3/3
The learned counsel for the applicant/respondent submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, the opposite party no. 1/appellant has been taking active steps towards construction of a house within the suit land and accordingly, in the event the same is allowed to be proceeded, the interest of the applicant/respondent shall be prejudiced.
To the above submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant has submitted that he had carried out certain renovation works with regard to the structure already existing in the said suit land and had not made any new construction therein. He further submits that the renovation works as undertaken by him has also been stopped and also undertakes not to carry out any fresh construction activity over the suit land in question, during the pendency of the present appeal.
In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant, the present interlocutory application need not be detained any further and the same is disposed of with a direction to the parties to maintain status-quo, as on today, with regard to the suit land.
With the above observations and directions, the present interlocutory application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant should be restrained from further construction on the suit land during pendency of the appeal.
Smt. Lalmuansangi L/R of Singhmuaka
Sh. C. Lalhrangluaia
The State of Mizoram
N. Unni Krishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
