IMPORTANT POINT
The court dismissed the appeal as redundant due to subsequent developments regarding the revised Draft Award, affirming that the original challenge was no longer relevant.

JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants, Ms. Dinari T. Azyu and Mr. Lalsawirema, learned counsels for the respondents.

2. This is an intra Court appeal filed by the appellants against the Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 10/2016 wherein, the observation of the Law & Judicial Department vide their I.D No. LJD.24/2014/433 dated 03.12.2015 that the Draft Award No. 3/2014 had lapsed since the Award was not pronounced within a period of two (2) years from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) was not only set aside but also the letter dated 10.12.2015 by which the said observation of the Law & Judicial Department was communicated by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Land Revenue & Settlement Department to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib was also set aside while directing the respondents to pay the compensation as per the Draft Award No. 3/2014 within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.

3. The Writ Appeal was initially filed in the Principal Seat of this Court at Guwahati wherein, it was registered and numbered as W.A No. 333/2018. The records reveal that there was delay in filing the Writ Appeal but a separate application for condonation of delay was not filed. Subsequently, an application for condonation of delay was filed i.e., I.A(C) No. 1056/2017 and vide Order dated 09.11.2018, the delay was condoned. The appellants also filed a separate Interlocutory Application namely, I.A(C) No. 1902/2018 seeking stay of the impugned Judgment & Order of the learned Single Judge and also, the proceedings in Contempt Case No. 29/2016. Accordingly, this Court vide Order dated 26.08.2019 suspended the impugned Judgment & Order of the learned Single Judge. The said order was passed in the writ appeal.

4. Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned Judgment & Order is not sustainable in view of the fact that the approval given on the Draft Award No. 3/2014 and communicated vide Communication dated 21.05.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolasib District, Kolasib by the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Revenue Department was not an approval for the entire Award prepared by the District Collector concerned but a partial approval only. Since the approval was given by the State Government partially only and therefore, the acquisition proceedings had only lapsed as it was not completed within the stipulated period of two (2) years as provided under Section 11A of the LA Act. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the case of Smt. Bailamma Alias Doddabailamma (Dead) & Ors. Vs. Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society & Ors. (2006) 2 SCC 416. Referring to the said Judgment of the Apex Court, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the acquisition proceedings can be said to be complete with the pronouncement of the Award without any alteration but however, if there is any alteration, it cannot be said that the Award is complete. Therefore, the Award in terms of Section 11A will lapse after a period of two (2) years from the date of notification under Section 6 of the LA Act.

5. The learned Senior Counsel however submits that in the meantime certain developments took place after the filing of the Writ Appeal. He submits that a so called Coordination Committee, Serkhan to Bagha Road represented by their Chairman filed a Writ Petition before this Court i.e., WP(C) No. 167/2017 alleging that there were a number of false claims made by land owners and at the same time, genuine land owners who were affected were not getting their due compensation and for which, the Committee was formed to check such irregularities. That in the said Writ Petition, stand taken by the State respondents as well was that they were in favor of the r