RAM KRISHNA DUTTA Vs. BIMAL PHUKAN @ BIPIN BHARALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Khound, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.

(2.) By way of the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 9/1/2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, acting as the Land Grabbing Tribunal, in Misc. Land Grabbing Case No. 4/2017. By the impugned order, the learned Court below, upon being satisfied that the petitioners/respondents had grabbed the land belonging to the respondent/petitioner within the meaning of Ss. 2(d) and 2(e) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2010"), proceeded to take cognizance of the criminal offence under Rule 3(1) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 against the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the learned Land Grabbing Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the alleged criminal offence without first determining the civil liability of the parties. According to learned counsel, the scheme of the Act of 2010 requires the Tribunal to first determine the question of title, ownership, or lawful possession of the land in question by following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, and only thereafter proceed with criminal prosecution in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.