Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010012172024 2025:GAU-AS:10903 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/20/2024 SANDESH KHAN S/O- LATE NUR MOHAMMAD, R/O- VILLAGE KAKADHOWA, MOUZA- GOMA FULBARI, P.S- TARABARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS NUR ISLAM KHAN AND 4 ORS S/O- LATE RAHIZ KHAN 2:IMAN KHAN S/O- LATE RAHIZ KHAN 3:SALAMAT KHAN S/O- LATE RAHIZ KHAN 4:AKKABAR KHAN S/O- LATE RAHIZ KHAN ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BORAGDIA MOUZA- NAGAON P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM 5:FAIZUDDIN S/O- LATE JALAL BEPARI Page No.# 2/3 RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SONERTARI MOUZA- CHENGA P.S- TARABARI P.O- PASCHIM MAZDIA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. B HUSSAIN, MR A H TOUFIQ Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M A SHEIKH (R-1,2,3,4), MR. S DAS (R-1,2,3,4),MD A S AHMED (R-1,2,3,4,5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA ORDER Date : 18.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. B Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for all the respondents. 2. This application has been file under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Challenging the Order dated 17.11.2023, passed by the learned Special Tribunal (Land Grabbing), Barpeta in Misc. (Land Grabbing) Case No.128/2023. 3. Learned Tribunal did not take cognizance of any offences under the Land Grabbing Act against the respondents that is why the present Revision Petition has been filed. 4. It may be stated that Civil Suits are going on between the parties. The respondents claimed to have purchased the disputed land on the basis of a registered sale deed in the year 2009 and they have mutated their names in the Revenue Page No.# 3/3 records. 5. This Court in Anarul Hoque @ Anar Hussain vs Sadir Ali (CRP Case No.74/2018) had held that the “land grabber” is a person who has no “ownership”, “title” or “physical possession” over the disputed land. In the case in hand, the learned Tribunal found that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are prima facie owners and title holders of the disputed land. Therefore, no cognizance of any criminal offence was taken against them. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. 7. The parties are already in a Civil litigation. The respondents have claimed ownership over the suit land on the basis of a registered sale deed. If there is any dispute to that effect, the petitioner is at liberty to raise that issue before the Trial Court. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has correctly passed the impugned order. There is no merit in this Revision Petition, accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant