The Land Grabbing Tribunal can proceed with criminal cognizance under the Assam Land Grabbing Act without determining civil liability first, provided no bona fide dispute regarding property rights is raised by the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Kaushik Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

2. By way of the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, acting as the Land Grabbing Tribunal, in Misc. Land Grabbing Case No. 4/2017. By the impugned order, the learned Court below, upon being satisfied that the petitioners/respondents had grabbed the land belonging to the respondent/petitioner within the meaning of Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2010”), proceeded to take cognizance of the criminal offence under Section 3 (1) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 against the petitioners.

3. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the learned Land Grabbing Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the alleged criminal offence without first determining the civil liability of the parties. According to learned counsel, the scheme of the Act of 2010 requires the Tribunal to first determine the question of title, ownership, or lawful possession of the land in question by following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, and only thereafter proceed with criminal prosecution in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. It is contended that until the civil liability of the parties is determined in accordance with law, criminal cognizance under the Act of 2010 cannot be taken. In support of the aforesaid contention, reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in Anarul Hoque alias Anar Hussain vs. Sadir Ali , rendered in CRP No. 74/2018.

5. Per contra, Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent, submits that the petitioners had filed their written objection before the Land Grabbing Tribunal on 06.03.2018; however, in the said objection, they did not assert any proprietary right, ownership right, or possessory right over the land in question.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the Land Grabbing Tribunal had already considered the question of civil liability and, by order dated 30.11.2019, was satisfied that the petitioners had grabbed the land within the meaning of the Act of 2010. In such circumstances, the subsequent cognizance of the criminal offence cannot be faulted.

7. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Assam, In re, reported in (2018) 2 GLR 313, wherein the procedure to be followed by the Land Grabbing Tribunal under the Act of 2010 has been elaborately discussed.

8. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 , to contend that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited in scope and is intended only to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their authority. It is argued that the High Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction under Article 227 and, therefore, should not interfere unless there is patent illegality or manifest miscarriage of justice.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the materials available on record.

10. Section 2(d) of the Act of 2010 defines a “land grabber” a