Tribunal’s finding of land grabbing is perverse if contrary to pleadings, evidence, and official revenue reports.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the findings of the Special Tribunal were perverse and dehors the pleadings and evidence on record regarding the act of land grabbing.

The court held

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.

It also directed

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.

01Facts

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.

The original complainant (Respondent No. 4) alleged that the petitioners attempted to grab his gifted land on 20.07.2016.

pp. 3-4

A 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.

pp. 6-7

Despite 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.

p. 5, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the findings of the Special Tribunal were perverse and dehors the pleadings and evidence on record regarding the act of land grabbing.

p. 9/para. 19

ii.2. 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.

p. 10/para. 24

03Law 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.

p. 4, 7, 8

Order XXVI, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, establishing that a court-ordered Commissioner/official report constitutes evidence.

p. 7, 13

Article 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".

p. 6, 11

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 107 Section 144 Section 145

Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 Section 2 Section 4 Section 5 Section 7 Section 8 Section 10 Section 11 Section 13

04Reasoning

While Section 11 of the 2010 Act allows a presumption against an accused, the court held that the complainant must first prove "foundational facts".

pp. 8-9

PW-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.

pp. 10-11

The 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.

p. 7, 13

The Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners held possession for seven years was deemed "perverse" as it existed neither in the pleadings nor the evidence.

p. 12

Since 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.

p. 10