KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Borah, the learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. EC. Dey, the learned advocate for the respondents.

2. By this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.02.2016, passed by the learned Special Tribunal, Guwahati, in Special Land Grabbing Case No. 8/2014, which was instituted under Section 8 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (herein after referred to as "the 2010 Act").

3. Both the respondents herein are the petitioners in the said land grabbing case. The petitioner herein is the Opp. Party in the said case. The petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 8(4) of the 2010 Act, inter-alia, praying for the dismissal of the said proceeding. However, by the order dated 21.01.2016, which is impugned herein, the said learned Tribunal had ordered that the said petition would be disposed at the time of final judgment

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that after the case was instituted, the learned Tribunal by order dated 18.07.2014, had referred the matter to the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle for inspection and verification and to submit a report. Thus, when the Revenue staff visited the residence of the petitioner in the third week of September, 2014, he came to know about the "land grabbing" proceeding. Accordingly, 30.09.2014, the petitioner had filed the said petition under Section 8(4) of the 2010 Act, referred herein before, which was numbered as petition no. 8551/14 dated 30.09.2014. It is submitted that the respondents did not file any objection to the said petition. The learned Tribunal had called the records of TS No. 37/2008 from the Court of Civil Judge No. 2, Guwahati. It is submitted that thereafter, without filing any objection, the respondents had filed their written argument on 16.09.2015 and the petitioner had also filed his written argument in connection with the said petition no. 8551/14.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's father is the real owner of the disputed land and the petitioner is residing therein as the family member of his father and that the said case was instituted without making the father of the petitioner a party to the land grabbing case with doubtful motive. It is submitted that the father of the respondent No. 2 had purchased the land now under dispute from Dr. Bipul Kalita vide registered sale deed No. 8130 dated 23.09.2003. However, the TS No. 37/2008 filed by the said vendor of the respondent No. 2 along with others had withdrawn the suit and, as such, his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land was never declared by the civil Court and, as such, any claim which the respondents had over the disputed land, had lapsed by withdrawal of the said suit by the vendor of the respondent No. 2 and, as such, the institution of the land grabbing case was an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the alleged vendor of the respondent No. 2 did not have possession over the disputed land and no valid title had passed on to the respondent No. 2. It is submitted that if the schedule of land which is the subject matter of TS No. 37/2008 and the present land grabbing case are compared, it would be apparent that they are two different plots of land. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 2 claimed to be the owner of the disputed land, and the case was being conducted through the respondent No. 1 on the strength of a power of attorney bearing registered deed No. 1552/2010 dated 06.05.2010. It is also submitted that the respondents had instituted proceedings under Section 145/146 Cr.P.C., which was registered as Case No. 34m/2011, wherein it was alleged that some unknown persons were trying to encroach the land. Hence, for the above reasons and other reasons as stated in the said petition, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the present proc