Facts
The petitioners (accused) challenged an order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Special Tribunal (Land Grabbing), Goalpara, which declared them "land grabbers" under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010.
Source reference: no citationThe original complainant (Respondent No. 4) alleged that the petitioners attempted to grab his gifted land on 20.07.2016.
Source reference: p.3-4A verification report from the Circle Officer dated 02.08.2017 stated the land had been vacant since 2015 and was not in anyone's possession.
Source reference: p.6-7Despite the complainant (PW-1) admitting in cross-examination that the petitioners did not threaten dispossession on the alleged date, the Tribunal found the petitioners in illegal possession for seven years and ordered compensation of Rs. 1.00 Lakh.
Source reference: p.5, 8Issues
1. Whether the findings of the Special Tribunal were perverse and dehors the pleadings and evidence on record regarding the act of land grabbing.
Source reference: p.9/para. 192. Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when the State has failed to notify the appellate "Special Court" mandated by Section 13 of the 2010 Act.
Source reference: p.10/para. 24Law Applied
The court primarily applied the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, specifically Section 2(d) defining a land grabber, Section 10 regarding civil liability procedures, and Section 11 regarding the presumption and burden of proof.
Source reference: p.4, 7, 8Order XXVI, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, establishing that a court-ordered Commissioner/official report constitutes evidence.
Source reference: p.7, 13Article 227 of the Constitution and the principles in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. v. B. Gurappa Naidu, which limit supervisory interference to cases of "unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction," "gross abuse of jurisdiction," or "perversity apparent on the face of the record".
Source reference: p.6, 11Reasoning
While Section 11 of the 2010 Act allows a presumption against an accused, the court held that the complainant must first prove "foundational facts".
Source reference: p.8-9PW-1 (complainant) and PW-3 (witness) failed to testify to any actual dispossession or illegal occupation by the petitioners; in fact, their statements contradicted the complaint.
Source reference: p.10-11The Tribunal ignored the Circle Officer’s report (treated as evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC), which confirmed the land was vacant since 2015.
Source reference: p.7, 13The Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners held possession for seven years was deemed "perverse" as it existed neither in the pleadings nor the evidence.
Source reference: p.12Since the State of Assam had failed to constitute the statutory Appellate Special Court under Section 13, the High Court invoked Article 227 to prevent a failure of justice.
Source reference: p.10Holding
The High Court held that the Tribunal’s order was perverse and a gross abuse of jurisdiction as it considered materials extraneous to the record.
The Court set aside the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by the Special Tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Special Tribunal, Goalpara, for a fresh decision based strictly on the existing pleadings and evidence.
Source reference: p.13-14Original Court PDF
Abad Ali And 3 Ors.vsThe State Of Assam And 3 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in