Page No.# 1/3 vs Khagen Hajong
2023 Latest Caselaw 1759 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010023322023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                  Case No. : CRP/44/2023

            DHIPEN HAJONG @ DHIPES HAJONG AND 3 ORS.
            S/O- LATE BASANTA HAJONG

            2: AMRIT HAJONG
             S/O- DHIPEN HAJONG

            3: RAJESWARI HAJONG
             D/O- DHIPEN HAJONG

            4: BAJAYANTYI HAJONG
             D/O- DHIPEN HAJONG



            ALL ARE R/O -
            VILL - PAKHARAPARA ( HAJONG BASTI)

            P.O AND P.S - BOKO
             DIST- KAMRUP (R)

            PIN-781123
            ASSA

            VERSUS

            KHAGEN HAJONG
            S/O- LATE CHANDRA HAJONG, R/O- BONDA COLONY, NARENGI,
            P.S- PRAGJYOTISHPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), PIN-781026, ASSAM



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R BARUAH

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                                       Page No.# 2/3




                                    BEFORE
                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
                                 ORDER

03. 05. 2023

Heard Mr. A Ikbal, learned counsel for the petitioners. The present application is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 assailing judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed in Land Grabbing Case No. 10/2016 by the learned Special Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge), Kamrup (R) at Amingaon whereby the petitioners are held to be land grabbers and order of eviction was passed against the petitioners.

Mr. Ikbal referring to the definition of land grabber given under Section 2(d) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 contends that in view of the pleadings of the petitioners in land grabbing case admitting that the revision petitioners are co-sharers of the disputed land, the learned court could not have held the petitioners to be land grabbers.

Perused the judgment. The judgment discloses that the petitioners in the aforesaid land grabbing case candidly admitted that the father of the present petitioners and the grandfather of the father of the respondents are co-sharers of the property in dispute and according to them the petitioners were also asked to look after the disputed land.

In that view of the matter, this court is of the prima-facie view that when it is admitted that the alleged land grabbers are co-sharers and already in physical possession as care takers of the land, they will not come under the definition of land grabbers.

This matter needs further consideration.

Page No.# 3/3

Issue notice, returnable after six weeks.

Petitioners to take steps upon the respondents through registered post with A/D and usual process within a period of one week from today.

As an interim, until further order, the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed in Land Grabbing Case No. 10/2016 by the learned Special Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge), Kamrup (R) at Amingaon shall remain suspended.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant