IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Abad Ali, S/o. Late Altazuddin Sk. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Assam, Represented by Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management, Dispur & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 558 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2024
Land Grabbing - Jurisdiction of Special Tribunal - Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 - Section 4, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 13, Section 14, Section 16
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to challenge a Judgment and Order passed by the Special Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010, deciding the civil liability. The Special Tribunal found the respondents to be 'land grabbers' and ordered their prosecution under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners contended that the Judgment and Order was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to the absence of an appellate forum.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal, rendered by following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deciding the civil liability, is a judicial order of a civil court. It found that a challenge to such an order is not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court directed the petition to be registered as a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issue was whether the Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010, deciding the civil liability, could be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal, rendered by following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deciding the civil liability, is a judicial order of a civil court. It found that a challenge to such an order is not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court directed the petition to be registered as a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
JUDGMENT :
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Tribunal [Land Grabbing] at Goalpara in Land Grabbing Case no. 45/2016, the petitioners, 4 [four] in nos., who were respondents in the said case, have sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside and quashing of the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Special Tribunal [Land Grabbing] at Goalpara in Land Grabbing Case no. 45/2016.
2. The events which have led the petitioners to institute the present writ proceeding can be narrated, in brief, at first.
3. One Md. Afaz Ali, who has been impleaded as the party-respondent no. 4 in the present writ petition, filed a complaint under Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 before the Special Tribunal [Land Grabbing] at Goalpara for taking cognizance of land grabbing against the respondents impleaded therein, who are the petitioners herein, to punish them and to restore peaceful possession of the land alleged to be grabbed. As per the complaint, the plot of land allegedly grabbed is a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas 2 Kathas 5 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 154[Old]/70 [New] & Patta no. 368 [New] of Khatian no. 188, situate at Village – Hadi Gaon, Matia Revenue Circle, District – Goalpara [hereinafter referred to as ‘the subject-land’, for short]. On receipt of the complaint by the Special Tribunal [Land Grabbing] at Goalpara [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Tribunal’, for short], the same had been registered as Land Grabbing Case no. 45/2016. After registration of the land grabbing case, the respondents therein were put to notice and after receipt of notice, the respondents entered their appearances. After submission of pleadings, the learned Special Tribunal framed eight nos. of issues for discussion. During the course of trial, the complainant examined three nos. of witnesses as P.W.1, P.W.2 & P.W.3 and adduced documentary evidence in the form of five nos. of documents. The respondents did not adduce any evidence in defence. After closure of evidence from both the sides, the learned Special Tribunal had recorded the findings in favour of the complainant in respect of all the issues framed and reached an opinion that the complainant would be entitled to the reliefs prayed for. Accordingly, the learned Special Tribunal passed a Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 against the respondents. The operative parts of the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2022 read as under :-
4. In the present proceedings, an issue has arisen as to whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari will be maintainable against a judgment and order of a Special Tribunal [Land Grabbing], constituted under the provisions of the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010, deciding the civil liability.
5. In order to decide the issue, it appears necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Land Grabbing Act’, for short].
5.1. The Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 [As
Virindar Kumar Satyawadi vs. State of Punjab
G. Veerappa Pillai vs. Raman & Raman Limited
Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai
Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others
Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana
Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Gujarat Agro Industries Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and others
"Land grabber" means a person or a group of person who occupy or attempt to occupy with or without use of force, threat, intimidation and deceit, land over which he or they have no ownership, title o....
The proceedings under the Assam Land (Grabbing) Act are specialized to expedite resolution of land disputes, and judicial interference is unwarranted at interlocutory stages.
Possession without lawful entitlement constitutes land grabbing; mere long-term possession does not confer legal title under the Assam Land Grabbing Act, 2010.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Land Grabbing Appeals after the abolition of the Special Court; such appeals are not maintainable without a designated appellate forum as per the Act.
It is well settled principle of law there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality of a statute. While deciding validity of a statute, it would be endeavour of court to find out the intention ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.