Unauthorized possession does not constitute 'land grabbing' under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, unless associated with criminal intention.

JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated 20-12-2017 passed by the learned Special Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010.

2. The facts, which may be necessary for disposal of this revision may be stated thus : The respondent, as petitioner, filed an application u/s. 8 (2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (for short Land Grabbing Act) alleging that he was the owner and has been possessing of the land measuring 1 Bigha 3 kathas covered by period patta No. 194, Dag No. 196 and land measuring 1 bigha covered by periodic patta No. 199, Dag No. 192. On 02-04-2014, the respondents (petitioners herein) being armed with various weapons illegally encroached into the aforementioned land which were in three different plots and since then they have been occupying the said land by constructing house. The respondent filed an application u/s. 145/146 CrPC. However, no effective order was passed and therefore, the petition under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 has been filed.

3. Out of the three respondents in the petition, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the proceeding by filing a joint written statement. However, the respondent No. 3 did not contest the proceeding. The pleaded case of the respondent No. 1 and 2 was that the petitioner (respondent herein) sold land measuring 1 bigha of Dag No. 90 and P.P. No. 68 Kissam at Habidubi to the respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed. But when the respondent Jainuddin went to take possession of the land, he found that another person was already occupying the said land. As the petitioner Sadir Ali had no land in the aforementioned dag and patta, he assured the respondent No. 2 Jainuddin, that he would provide an alternative plot of land in dag No. 196 of P.P. No. 192. When Jainuddin went to take possession of the said land he found that it was also occupied by another person and he realized that the petitioner Sadir has cheated him. Faced with such circumstances and having no alternative, the respondents (petitioners herein) approached the villagers with their grievances and there was a village meeting, where the petitioner Sadir Ali (respondent herein) was also present and in the said village meeting Sadir Ali admitted his fault and promised to provide 1 bigha of land in dag no. 192 and P.P. No. 199. As per the decision of the village meeting, where the respondent Sadir Ali was also a party, the possession of the disputed land measuring 1 bigha covered dag no. 192 of P.P. No. 199 was handed over to the respondent No. 2 Jainuddin and as such, it was pleaded case of the respondent that the respondents did not grab or illegally occupied the land in question and the petition u/s. 8 (2) was filed by making concocted allegations. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Special Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Is there any cause of action for filing the case?

2. Whether the petitioner/applicant has right, title and interest over the disputed land described in para 12 of the petition?

3. Whether the respondents have grabbed the said land of the applicant on 2-4-2014?

4. Whether the applicant sold the schedule land to the respondents by registered sale deed?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

4. Both the parties adduced evidence and upon hearing parties, the learned Special Tribunal passed the impugned order. While disposing the civil liability by the impugned order, learned tribunal held that petitioner Sadir Ali was the owner of the land and the respondents (petitioner herein) did not have any title over the disputed land and therefore, they were considered to be the land grabber and accordingly subsequent order/orders for delivery of possession of the land to the petitioner Sadar Ali was also passed.

5. Aggrieved by the above order, the present revision petition has been f