JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 2. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Government advocate, Assam for respondent No. 1. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 though notice served.

2. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 24.9.2015, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh in Assam Land Grabbing Case No. 6/2015 accepting the final report submitted by the Officer in-Charge of Borboruah Police Station in connection with Borboruah PS Case No. 143/2015 registered under section 447/506/34, IPC read with sections 4/5 of the Assam Land Grabbing Act, 2010.

3. This court by order dated 22.1.2016 had issued notice.

Case of the petitioner is that he had lodged a first information before the Borboruah Police Station alleging that on 28.5.2015 at around 9.30 am respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had illegally trespassed into his land carrying with them dangerous weapons and constructing bamboo fencing with the intent to grab his land illegally. When he protested, he was abused and threatened. On the basis of the aforesaid first information, Borboruah PS Case No. 143/2015 was registered under section 447/506/34, IPC read with section 4/5 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. Final report, being Final Report No. 65, dated 31.5.2015 was filed by the police before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh wherein, it was stated that it was a case of civil dispute. The final report was registered as Assam Land Grabbing Case No. 6/2015 and was assigned to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh for consideration. It appears that notice was issued to the informant as well as to the accused persons. Upon receipt of notice, petitioner had appeared and sought for time. On the date fixed, i.e., on 24.9.2015, petitioner filed an application seeking adjournment on the ground of treatment of his wife. The accused persons were present. Taking the view that petitioner had nothing to object about filing of the final report, the same was accepted and the proceeding was closed.

4. I am afraid the manner in which the order dated 24.9.2015 was passed reveals that the learned court below had failed to appreciate the very purpose and object behind enactment of Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. The Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (‘2010 Act’) has been enacted with the avowed objective of arresting and curbing unlawful activity of land grabbing which is adversely affecting public order. Land Grabbing as defined under section 2(e) of the 2010 Act has been specifically made a penal offence under section 4.

5. In State of Assam, In re., (2018) 2 GLR 313, a Division Bench of this court had examined in detail the provisions of the 2010 Act. The broad objective of the penal provision is indicative of the legislative intent to punish those who are connected with the offence of the land grabbing directly or indirectly. As per section 7, Special Tribunals are to be constituted for the purpose of inquiry and trial of cases of land grabbing. It was noticed that jurisdictional court of District and Sessions Judge has been designated as Special Tribunal which would include the court of Jurisdictional Addl. District and Sessions Judge.

6. Powers and functions of Special Tribunals are dealt with in section 8. Under sub-section (1), Special Tribunals have been conferred jurisdiction to try all cases arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to the ownership and title or lawful possession of the land allegedly grabbed, either before or after commencement of the 2010 Act. Provisions of sections 8(2) and 8(3) are relevant and are extracted hereunder:

“8. (2) The Special Tribunal may, either suo motu, or on application made by any aggrieved person or any officer or authority, take cognizance