No Mandatory Civil Adjudication Without Bona Fide Title Claim: Gauhati High Court Upholds Criminal Proceedings In Land Grabbing Case

The Gauhati High Court has held that prior determination of civil liability under Section 10(2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 is not required in every case, and is not attracted where no bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land is raised. In such circumstances, the Land Grabbing Tribunal can proceed with the criminal aspect of the matter without undertaking a separate civil adjudication.

Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “In the present case, it is evident from the records that although the petitioners filed their written objection before the Land Grabbing Tribunal, they did not raise any specific or bona fide plea asserting proprietary right, ownership, or lawful possession over the land in dispute.”

“In such circumstances, the requirement under Section 10(2) for prior determination of civil liability does not stand attracted. The statutory scheme does not mandate a mechanical determination of civil liability in every case; rather, such adjudication becomes necessary only where a credible civil dispute is raised by the accused … In the absence of any such plea, the learned Land Grabbing Tribunal was fully justified in proceeding with the criminal aspect of the matter without embarking upon a separate exercise of civil adjudication. Any insistence on a detailed determination of civil liability in such a situation would defeat the object of the Act of 2010.,” Justice Goswami added.

The case arose from a challenge to the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, acting as the Land Grabbing Tribunal in a Land Grabbing Case, whereby cognizance of the offence under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act was taken against the petitioners.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error by taking cognizance of the criminal offence without first determining civil liability, including questions of right, title, and possession over the land. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that no such plea of ownership or lawful possession had been raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal and that the proceedings had rightly progressed.

Examining the record, the High Court took note of the earlier order dated 30.11.2019 by which the Tribunal had already found that the petitioners had grabbed land within the meaning of the Act and had proceeded to take cognizance.

The Court noted, “Significantly, the petitioners did not challenge either the order dated 30.11.2019 or the order dated 25.07.2023 before any appropriate forum. The present challenge, therefore, is clearly an attempt to reopen issues that had already attained finality. … Subsequently, by order dated 09.01.2024, the learned Land Grabbing Tribunal proceeded to frame charges against the petitioners, which has now been assailed in the present revision petition.”

Accordingly, the Court held, “In the present case, no such jurisdictional error or perversity has been demonstrated. On the contrary, the approach adopted by the learned Land Grabbing Tribunal is consistent with the statutory scheme and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court.”

“The conduct of the petitioners in not challenging the earlier orders and in seeking to raise the same issue at a belated stage further reinforces the conclusion that the present petition has been instituted as an afterthought to delay the proceedings and avoid the consequences of the criminal trial,” the Court added.

Finding no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the civil revision petition.

Case Number: Civil Revision Petition (IO) No. 186 of 2024

Case Title: Sri Ram Krishna Dutta & Ors. v. Bimal Phukan @ Bipin Bharali

Click here to read the judgment