Page No.# 1/12 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 6 January, 2026

                                                                  Page No.# 1/12

GAHC010226022025




                                                             2026:GAU-AS:132

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

                          Case No. : Crl.Pet./1243/2025

          KHANINDRA DEKA AND ANR
          SON OF SRI BHUMIDHAR DEKA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RUDRESHWAR,
          P.O. RANGMAHAL, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (ASSAM), PIN- 781030

          2: SHRI RABINDRA DEKA
           SON OF SRI BHUMIDHAR DEKA
           RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RUDRESHWAR
           P.O. RANGMAHAL
           DISTRICT- KAMRUP (ASSAM)
           PIN- 78103

          VERSUS

          THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
          REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM

          2:SHRI BHUPEN BARMAN
           SON OF SHRI MANIK BARMAN
           R/O CHENIKUTHI
           K.K. BHATTA ROAD
           P.O.- SILPUKHURI
           DIST.- KAMRUP METRO
          ASSAM PIN- 781001

                                     BEFORE
                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR


Advocate for the petitioner(s):      Mr K Bhuyan
Advocate for the respondent(s):     Mr B Sarma, APP, Assam

Mr A Iqbal, R-2.

                                                                    Page No.# 2/12

Date on which judgment was reserved : 11.12.2025

Date of pronouncement of judgment        : 06.01.2026


Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA
operative part of the judgment?


Whether the full judgment has been       : Yes
pronounced?

                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr K Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and also heard Mr B Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Assam/respondent No. 1 and Mr A Iqbal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, respectively.

2. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the BNSS-2023 with prayers to quash the proceedings of Special Land Grabbing Case No. 12 of 2023 pending before the Learned Special Tribunal, Kamrup, at Amin Gaon. The petitioners are the respondents in the aforesaid case and the respondents herein are the applicant in that case.

3. The case as projected in the aforesaid land grabbing case is that one Sumitra Barua and after her death, her legal heirs namely Nalini Barua, Padmini Barua and Vandana Barua were the owners of the entire land measuring 35 bigha, 3 katha, and 6 lecha, covered by Dag No. 495, 453, 494, 479, 480, 486, and 489 of Patta No. 245 in village Abhaipur, Moza Sila Sindhuri Ghopa under North Guwahati Revenue Circle, Kamrup Assam. The land covered by the said Dag No. 489, which is the land involved in the present case, was possessed as well as cultivated by various ryots. The said Nalini Barua, Padmini Barua and Page No.# 3/12

Vandana Barua, through their registered lawful attorney, instituted civil suits with prayers, among others, for eviction as well as recovery of possessory rights against the ryots. The title suits were initially contested by the said ryots, and thereafter, both the suits were decreed on compromise by order dated 12-05- 2016. The said Nalini Barua, Padmini Barua and Vandana Barua, through their registered lawful attorney thereafter gifted the suit land along with some other land through a registered gift deed bearing No. 965 of 2019 executed on 20-03- 2019 to the applicant in the Special L.G. case and handed over the possession of the entire land, including the suit land, as mentioned in the said gift deed to the applicant, and the applicant also accepted the same with physical possession. The applicant in the Special Land Grabbing Case is the respondent in this petition.

4. Thereafter, being satisfied with the clear physical possession as well as title of the applicant, the office of the Revenue Circle, North Guwahati, had granted partition in the name of the applicant in his entire land. Accordingly, new Dag number and Patta numbers were issued in the name of the applicant in respect of the suit land, which now are referred to as Dag number 1579 (new) and Patta number 1357 (new). This was done through an order dated 9- 02-2022 passed in mutual partition case.

5. It was the case of the applicant in the land-grabbing case, that in the year 2023, when the applicant decided to erect permanent boundary wall in the said suit land and thereafter also when the applicant had tried to enter the suit land, the respondents therein, who are the petitioners in this petition, had threatened him of dire consequences if he tried to enter the land. It was the further case of the applicant therein/respondent no 2 herein that the Page No.# 4/12

respondents therein/petitioners herein had occupied the said land along with the incomplete Assam-type house without any lawful entitlement. It was thus alleged that the respondents therein had forcibly grabbed the valuable land of the applicant and have created nuisance, atrocities, damages and threatened to finish the life and the property of the applicant if the applicant goes to suit land for construction of boundary wall or for any other purpose. In these circumstances, Special LG Case no 12/2023 had been instituted before the learned Special Tribunal Kamrup at Amingaon.

6. In this petition before this Court, it is the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners herein had a plot of land measuring 1 bigha, 2 katha, 10 lecha covered by Dag no. 491, patta no. 229, situated at Revenue Village, Abhaipur. According to the petitioners herein, in 2018, the Revenue Authority had issued a separate patta in respect of the said land, allotting new Dag no. 1314 and new patta no. 1087, by partitioning the land covered by dag no. 491. It is the case of the petitioners herein that their father is the owner and possessor of the land measuring 1 bigha, 2 katha, 10 lecha covered by dag no. 1314(new)/491 (old) and patta no.1087 (new)/229 (old). It is their case that their father had been possessing the stated land since the days of his ancestors and there is iron fencing surrounding the land, which was erected by the father of the petitioners herein. When the applicant in the Land Grabbing case/respondent no.2 herein had wanted to enter into the land of the petitioners, the petitioners herein protested in such illegal activities of the applicant.

7. It is the further case of the petitioners in this petition that although the name of their father appears in the north and west boundary of the land Page No.# 5/12

purchased by the respondents' herein, the said fact has been suppressed in the application filed before the Special Tribunal by not mentioning the name of their father in the boundary of the schedule of the land appended in the petition. In their written statement before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein had taken a stand that the respondent herein/applicant in the land grabbing case has been trying to grab the land belonging to the petitioners herein and therefore, an appropriate order was required to be passed to protect the land mentioned in the schedule appended to the written statement as, the applicant, according to the petitioners, had been trying to grab the land.

8. Insofar as the progression in the Special Land Grabbing case No. 12 of 2003 is concerned, the respondents herein have stated that the petitioners herein, as respondents in the land grabbing case, had entered appearance in the case on 2-3-2024 and had sought adjournment for filing the written statement which was allowed, fixing the next date on 1-4-2024 on which date the written statement was filed. The Tribunal received the report of the North Guwahati Revenue Circle on 3-6-2024 and the next date fixed was on 1-7-2024 for hearing. The petitioners herein, as respondents therein, filed adjournment petition on 1-7-2024 which was allowed, fixing the next date for 18-7-2024 for hearing. The respondent No. 2 herein, as petitioner in that proceeding, had argued the case on 18-7-2024 and the next date fixed was 17-8-2024 for argument by the petitioners in this petition. Both the sides had filed their written arguments on 17-8-2024 and the next date was fixed on 3-9-2024 for oral arguments. The applicant in the land grabbing case/ respondents' herein had completed their argument on 3-9-2024 and the next date was fixed on 16-11- 2024 for arguments to be made by the respondents therein/petitioners herein on which date the petitioners did not argue their case. The petitioners herein, as Page No.# 6/12

respondents in that case, thereafter sought consecutive adjournments on 16-11- 2024, 9-1-2025, 27-2-2025, 24-3-2025, 22-4-2025. On 19-5-2025, the Tribunal fixed the case for final order and judgment by fixing 17-6-2025 as the date for the petitioners herein to argue their case. The petitioners herein again sought an adjournment on 17-6-2025 and it was allowed by imposing a cost of Rs 750, fixing 21-7-2025 for hearing. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein had filed a petition to withdraw from the case and the other learned counsel of the petitioners did not argue the case before the Tribunal and the next date was fixed on 27-8-2025. On 27-8-2025, the newly engaged set of counsel sought an adjournment which was allowed fixing 14-10-2025 for arguments. It was thereafter that this petition had been filed before this court and following the order dated 9-10-2025, the further proceedings in the land- grabbing case was stayed fixing 9-1-2026 for necessary orders. The above assertions were not contradicted by the petitioners herein.

9. Mr. K Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the respondent no.2 has filed a false case against the petitioners herein, the proceedings before the Learned Special Tribunal deserve to be interfered with by this Court. He has further submitted that the land belonging to the petitioners stand in their own name and therefore, the very allegation that the petitioners have entered into the land of the immovable property of the respondent no 2 does not hold any water and even in that view of the matter, the proceedings before the learned Special Tribunal deserves interference. He has further submitted that the copy of the report called for by the learned Tribunal from the revenue authorities in North Guwahati Revenue Circle had not been given to the petitioners and even in that view of the matter, the impugned proceedings deserve the interference of this Court.

Page No.# 7/12

10. The learned counsel for the respondent no 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has not yet decided the civil liability of the parties in the Land Grabbing case instituted by the respondent no 2 and therefore, the approach to this Court at this stage is premature and liable to be rejected. He has further submitted that in any case, it is settled law that a finding of the learned Special Tribunal can be assailed by preferring a Civil Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and even in that view of the matter, the present petition filed under the provisions of 528 of the BNSS, 2023, at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings does not deserve any further consideration. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal since the time he had received notice and it was at the stage of final arguments that this petition had been preferred, with the only intention to delay the adjudication of the liabilities of the petitioner herein. He has submitted that the present proceedings before this Court deserve to be dismissed and the proceedings before the learned Special Tribunal be allowed to be brought to its logical conclusion.

11. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and has also perused the records available before it.

12. In Abad Ali & Ors. Versus The State of Assam & Ors. (WP (C) No. 558 of 2024 Decided On : 27-02-2024), this Court held that the Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal constituted under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, 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 Page No.# 8/12

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. It is an admitted position that, in the instant case, the proceedings before the learned Special Tribunal have not yet been completed and are at the stage where the arguments are to be advanced by the respondents therein/petitioners herein. The petitioners herein had appeared before the Learned Special Tribunal and filed their written statement, reserving their right to file additional written statement on receipt of the report, if any submitted to the Learned Special Tribunal.

13. It is also noticed that in the present proceedings, as well as in the written statement filed, the petitioners herein have not taken up the plea of a "better civil claim" upon the land/property in question. It has been held by this Court in XXX Vs. State of Assam; Crl. Ref. No. 1 of 2017, reported in 2017 (5) GLT 854 as:-

"23.2. Regarding second part of question No. (iv), we have already elaborately discussed above that the core object of the 2010 Act is to prohibit and punish land grabbing. The 2010 Act is a special legislation dealing with a special problem which has assumed endemic proportion. It seeks to ensure dispensation of speedy justice to the victims of land grabbing by evolving a special procedure. In the course of enquiry and trial by the Special Tribunal regarding the offence of land grabbing, if the alleged land grabber puts up a defence of proprietary right or ownership or possessory right over the land in question then only the Special Tribunal shall embark upon a summary adjudication of the civil liability first. Adjudication of civil liability, once cognizance of the offence of land grabbing is taken, is not automatic. A Special Tribunal is not obliged or required to embark upon the exercise of determining civil liability in each and every case of land grabbing enquired into and tried by it. It is only when a plea is taken or a defence Page No.# 9/12

is set up by the accused that he has a better civil claim over the land in question that the Special Tribunal shall carry out determination of the civil liability which is for the limited purpose to ensure that the accused is not wrongfully prosecuted where the burden would be on the accused to prove otherwise. This would be in consonance with the underlying principle governing Section 11 of the 2010 Act. However, if in a given situation, notwithstanding the plea or defence taken by the accused of having better civil claim over the land in question, the Special Tribunal proceeds with the criminal prosecution of the accused, at the stage when the same is brought to its notice, it may keep in abeyance the criminal prosecution and take up the defence plea of civil liability. After determining the said question in a summary manner and if such determination is in the negative in so far the accused is concerned, the Special Tribunal shall recommence the criminal trial at once."

14. Thus, in the absence of any "better claim" by the petitioners before it, the Special Tribunal was not under any obligation to hold a summary enquiry in that regard. The petitioner in the present case, when praying for interference with the Land Grabbing case, has raised a grievance that they were not supplied with the report received from the Circle Office, North Guwahati Circle on the enquiry conducted during the pendency of the land grabbing case. However, the petitioners have not pleaded as to how such alleged non-supply of the report has prejudiced them. From the record of proceedings before the learned Special Tribunal, as asserted by the respondent no 2 in his affidavit and not controverted by the petitioners, the petitioners herein as respondents in the Land Grabbing Case are to submit their arguments before the Special Tribunal.

15. With regard to the contention raised by the petitioners regarding non- compliance of the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Assam Land (Grabbing) Act, 2010, it is relevant to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Abdur Rahim (Md.) and Ors. Versus Abdul Odud (Md.) and Ors., reported in Page No.# 10/12

2018 (4) GLT 1155, wherein it has held as follows:

"11. The land grabbing proceeding is required to be heard and disposed of in a summary manner and, as such, in order to ensure speedy trial, mini-trial at every stage of a land grabbing proceedings is neither envisaged nor desired. Therefore, at this stage, this revisional Court is inclined not to interfere in this land grabbing proceedings at an interlocutory stage. Any interference with a land grabbing case at its initial and/or interlocutory stage at a drop of a hat shall convert such an urgent proceeding into a long drawn proceeding, which would frustrate the very purpose of the said Act.

12. Similarly, as indicated above, although the compliance Section 6(4) and Section 7 of the Assam Land (Grabbing) Act, 2010 is desired, but the said provisions being directory and not mandatory, the non-compliance of the said Rules does not vitiate the proceedings instituted under the said 2010 Act, because with the appearance of the respondents in such proceeding, it is seemed that the respondents have the notice of the nature of offence alleged."

16. This Court in the case of Pabitra Boro And Ors. Vs. Sabitri Nath, reported in AIR 2023 (Gau) 78 has held as follows:

"32. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court consider as to whether the proceedings under the Act of 2010 can be said to be a proceedings coming within the ambit of the due process of law. Section 8 (2) of the Act of 2010 specifically stipulates that the Special Tribunal may either suo moto, or on application made by the aggrieved person or any officer or authority, take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to ownership and title to or lawful possession of, the land grabbed whether before or after the commencement of the Section 10 (1) of the Act of 2010. In terms with Act of 2010, the Special Tribunal has to follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as while deciding the criminal liability the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in so far as the said enactments are not inconsistent under the Act of Page No.# 11/12

2010. It would further be seen from a perusal of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 that in terms of Rules 9, the Special Tribunal shall after taking cognizance of the case, give notice to the Assam land grabber in Form IV. If this Court peruses the Form IV, it would be seen that the alleged land grabber is given an opportunity to appear and submit written representation/objection to the case. Further, in terms with Section 8 & 10 of the Act of 2010, the alleged land grabber is entitled to give evidence to show that he/she has title or ownership to or physical possession on the basis of lawful entitlement. It is on the basis of such pleadings and evidence that the Special Tribunal would first decide the civil liability with respect to ownership and title to or lawful possession. It is also appropriate to refer to Section 10 (5) of the Act of 2010 which have been quoted herein above where it has been clearly mentioned that the Special Tribunal, before passing an order under the Act of 2010, shall give to the land grabber an opportunity of making representation or of adducing evidence, if any, in that regard and consider every such representation and evidence.

33. Therefore, it is clear that the alleged land grabber is given due opportunity of being heard before deciding the question whether the alleged land grabber has ownership, title to or lawful possession of, the land grabbed. It has to be borne in mind that Act of 2010 as already stated is special remedial statue to arrest and curb the unlawful activities of grabbing. This special legislation in the opinion of this Court can also be attracted against a person in settled possession who has no title or ownership to or lawful possession of the land grabbed. This therefore answers the question so framed in as much as the petitioners merely on the basis of being in long settled possession cannot claim that the proceedings under the Act of 2010 cannot be initiated against them."

17. This Court has noticed that the land grabbing in the State has to be kept at check, which is the intention carried forward by the said Act of 2010. The merits of the claims raised by the petitioners in their objections filed before the Learned Special Tribunal cannot be evaluated by this Court at this stage. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioners to assail the proceedings pending before the Learned Special Tribunal, Kamrup, Amingaon in Special LG case no 12/2023 are answered in the negative. Resultantly, no case is found to be made out by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings of Special L.G Case No. 12/2023 Page No.# 12/12

and, as such, the prayer made by the petitioners in the present petition stands refused and rejected.

18. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. With the dismissal of the petition, the interim order keeping the proceedings of Special Land Grabbing Case no 12/2023 stand vacated and the learned Special Tribunal shall now proceed to adjudicate the issues before it in accordance with law.

19. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant