SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Gau) 279

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Dutta.
For the Respondents:Mr. B. Goswami, Additional Advocate General, Ms. N. Goswami, Standing Counsel, Mr. H. Sharma, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam.

IMPORTANT POINT
A Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010, deciding the civil liability, is a judicial order of a civil court and cannot be challenged in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

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 :-

    28. The respondents are found to be ‘land grabbers’ as defined under Section 2[d] of the Act & they are liable to be prosecuted for commission of an offence under Section 4 of the Act. Further, the Petitioner shall be put into possession of Schedule/suit land after expiry of the Appeal period. That apart, the Petitioner shall be compensation by the respondents for illegal possession of Schedule land since last 7 years which is quantified @ Rs. 1 lac. In the event of failure of the respondents to pay, it shall be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue. Prepare decree accordingly.

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

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top