Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010177102026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : FAO/61/2026 ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA AND 3 ORS. S/O RAMANAND BIDAWATKA, R/O 10, OMAN COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, FANCY BAZAR, P.S.- PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781001. 2: SUMAN DEVI BIDAWATKA W/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 3: AYUSH KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 4: ARCHIT KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR Page No.# 2/11 GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001 VERSUS SARAT DAS AND 2 ORS S/O GOJIN DAS, RESIDENT OF NAHIRA GAON, KHETIYAPARA, PALASHBARI, KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781132. 2:PRADEEP KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781128. 3:SOVIN KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781128 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P DEKA, I BHATTACHARYYA,MR A DAS,MR. A CHETIA Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2890/2026 ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA AND 3 ORS S/O RAMANAND BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 2: SUMAN DEVI BIDAWATKA W/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA Page No.# 3/11 R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 3: AYUSH KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 4: ARCHIT KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. VERSUS SARAT DAS AND 2 ORS S/O GOJIN DAS RESIDENT OF NAHIRA GAON KHETIYAPARA PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781132. 2:PRADEEP KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP Page No.# 4/11 ASSAM PIN- 781128. 3:SOVIN KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781128. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P DEKA Advocate for : appearing for SARAT DAS AND 2 ORS Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/2891/2026 ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA AND 3 ORS S/O RAMANAND BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 2: SUMAN DEVI BIDAWATKA W/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. 3: AYUSH KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI Page No.# 5/11 ASSAM PIN- 781001. 4: ARCHIT KUMAR BIDAWATKA S/O ARBIND KUMAR BIDAWATKA R/O 10 OMAN COMPLEX M.G. ROAD FANCY BAZAR P.S.- PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781001. VERSUS SARAT DAS AND 2 ORS S/O GOJIN DAS RESIDENT OF NAHIRA GAON KHETIYAPARA PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781132. 2:PRADEEP KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781128. 3:SOVIN KALITA S/O LATE LAKHI KALITA R/O VILLAGE- HUDUMPUR PALASHBARI KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781128. ------------ Advocate for : MR. P DEKA Advocate for : appearing for SARAT DAS AND 2 ORS Page No.# 6/11 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 24.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) Code Civil Procedure, 2026 has been filed by the appellants impugning the order dated 13.08.2026, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Special Tribunal, Amingaon, in Misc.(J) Case No. 27/2026 arising out of Special Land Grabbing Case No. 9/2026 3. The facts relevant for consideration of this appeal, in brief, are that the present appellants had filed an application under Section 8(2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, read with Rule 3(1) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013, inter alia, alleging that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessor of a plot of land measuring 13 Bigha 3 Katha covered by Dag No. 1297 in K.P. Patta No. 2024 under Mouza Rampur in village Nahira, under Palasbari Revenue Circle in the district of Kamrup, Assam. It is alleged that the present respondent No. 1 had started dumping soil from his brick kiln, which is adjacent to the said land and has illegally constructed a tin chali on the top of the dumped soil. It is further alleged that the respondent has also dug big hole in the southern portion of the land in order to erect RCC pillars and to build boundary walls. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the said case was registered as Special Land Grabbing Case No. 9/2026 before the Special Tribunal. He submits that in the aforesaid case, the present appellants has also Page No.# 7/11 filed an application under Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of temporary injunction against the respondent during the pendency of the Special Land Grabbing Case No. 9/2026. The said case was registered as Misc.(J) Case No. 27/2026. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that by order dated 13.8.2026 passed in Special Land Grabbing Case No. 9/2026, the Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Special Tribunal had taken cognizance of the case and issued notice to the respondents. He further submits that in the connected Misc.(J) Case No. 27/2026 also, the notices were issued to the opposite party. However, while issuing notice, as prayed for by the present appellant, the opposite party No. 1, namely, Sarat Das was restrained from dumping soil and undertaking any construction work over the scheduled land till the disposal of the connected land grabbing case. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellant is aggrieved with the observations made by the Special Tribunal in second part of the paragraph No. 6 in the order dated 13.8.2026 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 27/2026. He submits that the Tribunal, while restraining the opposite party and while issuing notice to them in the Misc.(J) Case No. 27/2026 also injuncted the present petitioner not to undertake any activity over the disputed land until the Tribunal adjudicates the liabilities of the parties. He further submits that Tribunal also made observations, without any material on record to that effect, that the scheduled land is not in possession of any of the disputing parties. 7. He submits that while making the said observation and injuncting the present appellants, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Page No.# 8/11 Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. He submits that as per the scheme of the said act, as clarified by a Division Bench of this Court in a reference made to it in the case of “XXX Vs. State of Assam” reported in “2018 2 GLR 313”. The question of adjudicating the civil liability after taking cognizance of offence of Land Grabbing Act would arise only if the alleged land grabber puts up a defense of proprietary right or ownership or possessory right over the land in question. Only in such a circumstance, the Special Tribunal shall embark upon a summary adjudication of civil liability first. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant case, only the notices have been issued to the respondent No. 1 and next date is fixed on 25th of September 2026 and the respondent side is yet to appear before the Special Tribunal, therefore, the question of putting a defense by the alleged land grabber on the date when the impugned order was passed does not arise. 9. He submits that the Special Tribunal has erred in taking upon itself the adjudication of civil liability without there being any plea from the respondents’ side regarding plea disputing the ownership or possessory right of the present appellants over the scheduled land. Hence, he submits that the impugned order, to the extent, it has directed the present petitioners to not to undertake any activity over the disputed land is apparently beyond its jurisdiction. He further submits that the observation made by the Tribunal that the petitioner is not in possession of the disputed land is also without any basis and as such, he prays for setting aside the impugned order to the extent it has directed the present petitioner not to undertake any activity over the disputed land as well as the observation made by the Tribunal without any basis regarding the fact that the Page No.# 9/11 present appellants is also not having possession over the scheduled land. He submits that since the respondents is yet to appear before the Special Tribunal as next date is fixed on 25th of September 2026. Hence, instead of issuing notice in this appeal, the case may be remanded back to the Special Tribunal by striking out the observation made in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order, wherein it has directed the present appellants not to undertake any activities for disputed land as well as the observation that the scheduled land is not in possession of the present petitioner as same would save sufficient judicial time. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants. 11. Apparently, the procedure to be followed by a Special Tribunal in land grabbing case has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case “XXX Vs. State of Assam” (supra) wherein the Division Bench of this Court has categorically observed that the mere taking of cognizance of offence in a land grabbing case would not automatically oblige the Special Tribunal to embark upon the exercise of determining civil liability. It observed that it is only when a plea is taken or a defense 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 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 of proving otherwise. 12. Thus, in a land grabbing case, the question of adjudicating civil rights between the parties would arise only if such a plea is taken by the land grabber. However, in the instant case, only notices have been issued to the respondent/alleged land grabber and he is yet to put his defense before the Page No.# 10/11 Special Tribunal. 13. As such, apparently, the observations made by the Special Tribunal in second part of the paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order, whereby apparently it has embarked upon adjudicating civil liabilities of the parties even before the land grabber putting up any defense or plea in that regard. 14. As the observation made by the Special Tribunal in the second part of the paragraph No. 6 of the impugned order is apparently beyond jurisdiction, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondents in this case and set aside the observation made by the Special Tribunal in the paragraph No. 6 of the impugned judgment. The observations and directions which are hereby set aside are as follows: - "The petitioner shall also not undertake any activities over the disputed land until this tribunal adjudicate on the civil liabilities of the parties. Apparently, the scheduled land is not in possession of any of the disputing parties and none of them shall make any attempt to possess the land till disposal of this proceeding.” 15. With the above observation, the case is remanded to the Special Tribunal to proceed in accordance with law by following the procedure as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred herein above. 16. It is hereby clarified that only the portion quoted herein above in paragraph No. 14 of this order is hereby set aside. The remaining part of the impugned order shall continue to have force and be valid. 17. With above observation, this appeal as well as the connected Page No.# 11/11 interlocutory applications are disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant