Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010056162024 2026:GAU-AS:7144 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/31/2024 ABAD ALI AND 3 ORS. S/O LT. ATAZUDDIN SK, R/O VILL- BAZRUK MANIKPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- KRISHNAI, DIST-GOALPARA, ASSAM 2: BONDA SK @ AMINUR ISLAM S/O ABAD ALI R/O VILL- BAZRUK MANIKPUR P.O. AND P.S.-KRISHNAI DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM 3: ANISUL HOQUE @ ANISUL ISLAM S/O ABAD ALI R/O VILL- BAZRUK MANIKPUR P.O. AND P.S.-KRISHNAI DIST-GOALPARA ASSAM 4: LADEN @ ASMABIN LADEN S/O ABAD ALI R/O VILL- BAZRUK MANIKPUR P.O. AND P.S.-KRISHNAI DIST-GOALPARA ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/14 GOALPARA P.O. AND P.S.-GOALPARA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MATIA REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. AND P.S.-MATIA DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM 4:ON THE DEATH OF MD AFAZ ALI HIS LEGAL HEIR- 4.1:EASMIN BEGUM D/O- MD AFAZ ALI @ EAFAJ ALI R/O BUJRUK MANIKPUR P.S AND P.O- KRISHNAI DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M DUTTA, MR S K CHHETRY,MS S DEV,MR. N UDDIN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE, MR A C SARMAH (R-4.1),MR B DEORI (R- 4.1),MR N BRAHMA (R-4.1),MR G BHARADWAJ (R-4.1),GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date: 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department, respondent No. 1; Ms. M. Barman, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3; and Mr. A.C. Sarmah, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Page No.# 3/14 Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4(a). 2. The petitioners are the accused in the proceedings of Land Grabbing Case No. 45/2016, which was filed before the learned Special Tribunal (Land Grabbing), Goalpara, where the learned District & Sessions Judge is the Presiding Officer. 3. The case of the respondent No. 4 in the complaint was that Md. Altazuddin Sk, who was the original owner of the schedule land had gifted the said land to Azizur Rahman, the father of the respondent No. 4 by Gift Deed No. 3585/3349 dated 09.08.1982. Thereafter, vide Registered Gift Deed No. 18/16 dated 04.01.2007, Azizur Rahman, the father of respondent No. 4 had gifted the schedule land to him. The respondent No. 4 claimed that since then he was peacefully possessing the said schedule land. 4. It is projected in the complaint filed on 20.07.2016 before the Learned Special Tribunal that sometime in the middle of May, 2015, the petitioner illegally, by using force, tried to grab the land, but due to timely intervention arising out of case filed by the original respondent No. 4 under Section 107/144/145 of the CrPC, being case No. 99/15, the petitioners could not enter the suit land. Thereafter, on 20.07.2016, the petitioners allegedly tried to dispossess the original respondent No. 4 from the disputed land on the strength of their muscle power and by threatening him with consequences, also allegedly ploughed the suit land by tractor and did not stop the illegal activities. Accordingly, the original respondent No. 4 had projected that he had suffered loss. Accordingly, on the ground that the cause of action arose on 20.07.2016, the land grabbing proceeding was initiated with a prayer to take cognizance of Page No.# 4/14 the offence under Sub-Section (2) of Section 8 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 2010 (2010 Act for short); to declare the right, title, interest of the original respondent No. 4 in respect of the suit land; to restore peaceful ownership and possession; and to impose punishment and for reasonable compensation as per Section 4(3) read with Section 5 of the 2010 Act. 5. As per the said complaint, the description of the scheduled suit land is land measuring 3 bigha, 2 katha, 5 lecha, under Revenue village Hadi Gaon under Matia Circle of Goalpara district, covered by Dag No. 154 (old)/70 (new), Khatian No. 188, Patta No. 368 (new), with definite boundaries as mentioned in the Schedule of the complaint. 6. The petitioners contested the said proceeding by claiming that the gift deed was forged and the same was a false gift deed made by way of impersonation and denied that the original respondent No. 4 had any right, title, or interest over the said gifted land and it is also alleged that the land was mutated in conspiracy with the concerned Lat Mondal and when came to know about it, an objection was filed against mutation, but no proceeding commenced before the Matia Circle Office. It was also claimed that Late Altazuddin Sk. During his lifetime had executed a will on 28.02.2003 in favour of the petitioner No. 1 in presence of witnesses, which was registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Goalpara, and they claimed to be in possession of the said land on the strength of the will and denied the allegation of land grabbing as false. 7. The respondent No. 4 had examined himself as PW-1; one Anowar Hussain, a petition writer by profession as PW-2; and one Shahab Ali, a licensed deed writer as PW-3. No evidence was led by the petitioner's side. Page No.# 5/14 8. Based on the discussion on the evidence on record, the learned Special Tribunal by order dated 26.04.2022, after discussing 8 (eight) issues framed, declared the petitioner to be a land grabber as defined under Section 2(d) of the 2010 Act, and was liable to be prosecuted for commission of offence under Section 4 of the said Act. It was directed that the respondent No. 4 shall be put in possession of the scheduled land after expiry of the appeal period and compensation for illegal possession was quantified at Rs.1.00 Lakh, to be recovered as land revenue from the petitioner. 9. It may be stated that in course of the witness examined, the respondent No. 4 had exhibited registered gift deed No. 3585/3349 dated 09.08.1982 as Ext.1, registered gift deed No. 18/16 dated 04.01.2007 Ext.2, certified copy of Jamabandi as Ext.3, and Land Holding Certificate as Ext.4. 10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, by referring to the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 as well as the statement made in paragraph 5 of the complaint petition, has submitted that as per the statement made in paragraph 5 of the complaint, the allegation is that the petitioner was trying to dispossess the respondent No. 4 and the PW-1, in his cross- examination, made a statement that it is not a fact that on 20.07.2016, the respondent along with his men came and threatened to dispossess him. Moreover, the PW-3, in his cross-examination, has stated that he had not seen the petitioner illegally occupying the disputed land and he did not know who was in possession there and he has also stated that he had not read the evidence-on-affidavit and he had only signed it. Accordingly, it is submitted that the allegation that any attempt was made for dispossession, is false and not borne by the records. Page No.# 6/14 11. The learned senior counsel for the substituted respondent has made his submissions in support of the impugned order and it is submitted that there are limitations on the part of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order passed by passed by the Special Tribunal. 12. By referring to paragraph 35 of the case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. & Anr. v. B. Gurappa Naidu & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1354/2013, decided on 30.04.2026, reported in (2026) SCC Online SC 745, it has been submitted that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a Court of first appeal so as to reappreciate and reweigh the evidence on facts upon which the determination and the challenge is based. Accordingly, it is submitted that the unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction ought not to be made in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It has been submitted that as the respondent No. 4 has been able to prove that there was an attempt for land grabbing and therefore, even such an attempt for land grabbing is an offence under Section 5(d) of the 2010 Act. 14. The issue regarding the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be dealt with shortly hereafter. 15. On perusal of the order impugned in this application, it is noted that at paragraph 23 thereof, the learned Special Tribunal had referred to the report dated 02.08.2017 of the Circle Officer, Matia, of which the learned Special Tribunal had taken judicial notice. As per the said report, the revenue staff, on Page No.# 7/14 spot verification, found that the land was lying vacant since the year 2015 and nobody was in its possession. As per the procedure prescribed under Sub- Section (2) of Section 10 of the 2010 Act, the Special Tribunal is required to decide the civil liability first. As per Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the said 2010 Act, to decide civil liability, the Special Tribunal is required to follow procedure prescribed by CPC. Therefore, on fact finding report which had come on record by virtue of the order of the learned Special Tribunal, in the considered opinion of the Court partakes the character of evidence in terms of Order XXVI, Rule 10(2) of the CPC. 16. The record also reveals that in the cross-examination, the PW-1 had also admitted regarding the same that as per the report, the suit land is not in possession of any of them. The words "any of them" would indicate both, the petitioner and the original respondent. It must be kept in mind that the first allegation of land grabbing, in the complaint petition, was on the specific date of 20.07.2016. 17. It is the admitted case of the respondent No. 4 in the complaint petition that an attempt was made for land grabbing in the middle part of May, 2015, but due to timely intervention, by the case filed by the respondent No. 4, under Section 107/144/145 CrPC, filed before the Court of Executive Magistrate, Goalpara, bearing case No. 99/15, the petitioner could neither enter into the suit land, nor could succeed in threatening and the said case was ended when the complainant continued to possess the suit land till 20.07.2016. With that pleading at paragraph-5 of the complaint petition, the finding of the learned Special Tribunal that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the suit land since last 7 years from the date of the order, which was passed on 26.04.2022, Page No.# 8/14 is not borne by the pleadings or the evidence on record because 7 years from 26.04.2022 would be in the year 2015. It is nobody's case that after the receipt of the detailed report sent before the learned Special Tribunal by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle on 02.08.2017, the land was grabbed by the petitioner and he was in illegal possession of the said land. It may be mentioned that as per the Tribunal's record, the evidence-on-affidavit of PW-1 and PW-2 were sworn on 28.09.2018, and filed before the learned Special Tribunal on the same day, i.e. 28.09.2018. While PW-1 was cross-examined on 08.11.2018, the PW-2 was cross-examined on 28.03.2019. The evidence-on-affidavit of PW-3 was sworn on 22.07.2019, and filed on the same day before the learned Special Tribunal. PW-3 was cross-examined on 26.02.2020. The evidence of PW-4 was filed on 03.09.2019 and he did not turn up for cross-examination. Accordingly, the evidence was closed by order dated 14.12.2021. 18. On 16.03.2022, the respondent No. 4 filed an application for cross-examination of PW-4 and to summon the Sub-Registrar, Goalpara. However, as the evidence was closed, by order dated 16.03.2022, the parties were directed to file their written submissions. 19. There is nothing on record other than the evidence of the said PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, that after 02.08.2017, the date of report by the Circle Officer, Matia Revenue Circle on the disputed land, the respondent No. 4 was dispossessed from the land. It may be mentioned that under Section 11 of the 2010 Act, the learned Special Tribunal can presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed land is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has been grabbed shall be on such person, i.e. the accused. However, in this case, the respondent No. 4 as the complainant had failed to prove the Page No.# 9/14 foundational facts. Therefore, the finding of the respondent No. 4 being dispossessed, and the direction for the respondent No. 4 to be put into possession of the suit land is dehors the pleadings and evidence on record, and therefore, this is a case where the learned Special Tribunal is found to have considered materials extraneous to the records and arrived at an ex facie incorrect conclusion. 20. It may be stated that the respondent No. 4 did not amend the complaint to allege that from 2015 to 26.04.2022, the date of judgment, the respondent No. 4 was dispossessed from the land by the act of land grabbing by the petitioners. 21. Resultantly, the quantification of the compensation of Rs.1.00 Lakh is also without any basis. 22. The issue regarding the limitations on the power of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as urged by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4(a) is taken up. 23. It may be mentioned that the 2010 Act had received the assent of the President of India on 28.10.2011, and was published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) No. 410, dated 18.11.2011. The said special Act was enacted to deal with land grabbing cases in the State of Assam. The said 2010 Act provides for constitution of Special Tribunal under Section 7 of the said Act. The said 2010 Act is a self contained code, containing the powers of the Special Tribunal and the procedure to be followed for trial of the cases, with special provisions for burden of proof. Section 13 of the said 2010 Act, provides for appeal by providing that any person aggrieved by the judgment and order, not Page No.# 10/14 being an interlocutory order of the Special Tribunal, may prefer an appeal before the Special Court on any question of law or of fact. The learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 4(a) and the learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate and the learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department had not denied that such Special Court to hear that appeals under the 2010 Act was not entitled and/or notified. Thus, the learned senior counsel/ counsel for both sides are ad idem that no Special Court has been notified by the Government of Assam, constituting Special Courts to hear appeal under section 13 of the said Act. 24. In the considered opinion of the Court, if the 2010 Act, which is a Special Act, is a self-contained code and provides for an appellate forum, just because the State, in its lethargy and indifference, has not notified a Special Court to hear appeal, the party aggrieved by the decision of the Special Tribunal, cannot be left remediless. Therefore, this Court has no option but to hear challenge to the final orders passed by the Special Tribunal in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which may be under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, when the State in defiance and/or non- compliance of the statutory provision of Section 13 of the 2010 Act, has not constituted Special Court with appellate power, the Court cannot be oblivious of the pleadings and nature of evidence which was available before the learned Special Tribunal. 25. In the present case in hand, the learned Special Tribunal is found to have arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was a land grabber and his possession was for 7 years from the date of the impugned order dated 26.04.2022, thought there is neither pleadings nor evidence to that effect. Rather, PW-1 denies that the land grabbing took place and the PW-3 denies any Page No.# 11/14 knowledge of any land grabbing by the petitioner. 26. Therefore, the decision of the learned Special Tribunal is found to be perverse and not borne by the pleadings and evidence on record. 27. Therefore, the decision of the Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is found to operate against the respondent No. 4. For the said purpose, paragraph-35 (a), (b) and (c), and paragraph- 36, 36.1 and 36.2 are quoted below: “35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters is as follows: a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or tribunals. b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. x x x 36. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court clearly exceeded the well-settled parameters governing the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 36.1. Firstly, the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised where there is an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction by a court not vested with such jurisdiction, or in cases of gross abuse of Page No.# 12/14 jurisdiction. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the Executing Court was duly vested with jurisdiction to deal with the matter, and no case of gross abuse of jurisdiction is made out. On this ground, the High Court could not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227. “36.2. Secondly, the power of superintendence may be invoked where there is an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in a court. In the present case, the Executing Court did exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it. Consequently, no occasion arose for the High Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution on this ground.” 28. Therefore, on the above observation of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. (supra), as it is apparent on the face of the record that the learned Special Tribunal had omitted to appreciate the statements made by PW-1 and PW-3 in their cross- examination, which are referred above, it is not a mere legal flaw in the impugned opinion, but the decision of the learned Special Tribunal became perverse without taking into account the evidence on record. In the absence of pleadings, the learned Special Tribunal arrived at a finding that the original respondent was dispossessed from the land, it would be a gross abuse of jurisdiction because no amount of evidence could have been considered dehors pleading and the pleadings referred above clearly say that the respondent No. 4 had continued to possess the land till 20.07.2016 and on 20.07.2016, an attempt was made to dispossess the respondent No. 4. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is no pleadings that on and from 20.07.2016, the petitioner was in possession of the said land. In the pleadings regarding cause of action, it has not been stated that the respondent No. 4 was disposed from the land, yet in paragraph-8 of the plaint, statement is made to restore the respondent No. 4 in the suit land, whereas on the contrary, the report which Page No.# 13/14 was sought for from the Circle Officer, which was received vide letter dated 02.08.2017, clearly discloses that the disputed land was cultivated by adhiar (person who cultivates land by taking a share of the crops), namely, Suto Mono @ Molo Hussain upto the year 2015 and presently, the disputed land was lying vacant since 2015. Thus, there was no burden on the petitioner to prove that they were not land grabbers. 29. The report dated 02.08.2017 as indicated above, was authored on 02.08.2017 and no attempt was made to dispute the contents of the said report. A report which is called for by the Court partakes the character of evidence, which would be evidence under the provision of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) of the CPC. Though, the said report was by the learned Special Tribunal, the said report was misread and misconstrued to hold that the respondent No. 4 was dispossessed from the suit land 7 (seven) years prior to 26.04.2022, which is perverse. 30. Therefore, the Court is inclined to hold that as the impugned order dated 26.04.2022 is perverse, contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record, there is no hesitation to set aside the said impugned order dated 26.04.2022, passed by the learned Court of Special Tribunal (Land Grabbing) at Goalpara in Land Grabbing Case No. 45/2016. 31. As rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the substituted respondent No. 4 that this Court is not seisin of any appeal against the impugned order, the Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the said learned Special Tribunal to hear the matter again strictly on the basis of pleadings and evidence already available on record, and to pass a fresh Page No.# 14/14 judgment and order in accordance with law after hearing the respective learned counsel and keeping into consideration the observations made in this order. 32. The said learned Special Tribunal is directed not to be influenced by any of the observations contained in this order, and shall be free to apply its mind and arrive at an independent finding on the basis of evidence on record to arrive at a fresh decision. 33. As both sides are duly represented, both sides are directed to appear before the said learned Special Tribunal on 18.06.2026, and by producing a certified copy of this order, await for further orders to be passed by the said learned Special Tribunal. 34. The Registry shall send back the records expeditiously along with a copy of this order to be made a part of the record by the said learned Special Tribunal for future reference. 35. This application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. 36. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Private Secretary Digitally signed by Champak Rajbongshi Date: 2026.05.26 15:51:31 +05'30'