GUWAHATI: In a landmark ruling that clarifies the boundaries of judicial interference in land disputes, the Gauhati High Court has held that criminal proceedings for land grabbing cannot be quashed at the threshold just because an occupant claims to have been living on the land for a long time.

Justice Rajesh Mazumdar, while dealing with a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, emphasized that "settled possession" is not a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. The Court ruled that whether an occupation is legal or illegal is a matter for the Special Tribunal to decide through a trial, not for the High Court to decide in a summary quashing petition.

The case involved a plot of land in village Abhaipur, Kamrup. The history of the land is quite detailed. Originally, it belonged to the heirs of late Sumitra Barua. After a series of legal battles and a compromise decree in 2016, the land was gifted to the respondent, Shri Bhupen Barman, through a registered gift deed in 2019.

Mr. Barman claimed that when he tried to build a boundary wall on his gifted land, the petitioners—Khanindra Deka and Rabindra Deka—stopped him. He alleged that they had forcibly grabbed the land, occupied an incomplete house on it without any legal right, and even threatened his life. Based on these allegations, a case was filed in the Special Tribunal (Land Grabbing), Kamrup.

The Deka brothers (the petitioners) approached the Gauhati High Court to stop the trial. Their main logic was simple:

They claimed they had been in "settled possession" of the land for a very long time.
They argued that the Land Grabbing Act was meant for "land mafias" and "hardcore criminals," not for ordinary people involved in a civil boundary dispute.
They requested the Court to use its "inherent powers" under Section 528 of the BNSS (which replaced Section 482 of the CrPC) to quash the case, calling it an abuse of the law.

For our readers, it is important to understand what Section 528 of the BNSS does. It gives the High Court "inherent powers" to stop any legal proceeding if it feels that the process is being used to harass someone or if it is necessary to secure the "ends of justice."

However, the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, is a "special law." It was created specifically to tackle the massive problem of land encroachment in Assam. Under this law, a "Land Grabber" isn't just a gangster; it includes anyone who occupies land without "lawful entitlement," whether they use force, threats, or even if they just stay there quietly without a legal right.

Justice Rajesh Mazumdar looked deep into the purpose of the law. The Court's observation can be broken down into four major points:

1. Settled Possession is not Lawful Entitlement

The Court made it very clear that just because you have been living on a piece of land for 10 or 20 years doesn't mean you are the legal owner. If you don't have a deed, a title, or a legal document showing you are allowed to be there, your possession might be "settled," but it isn't necessarily "lawful." The Land Grabbing Act specifically targets those without "lawful entitlement."

2. The Special Tribunal is the Right Place for Trial

The High Court noted that the Special Tribunal (which is usually headed by a District & Sessions Judge) is specifically designed to handle these cases. The Tribunal has the power to look at both civil issues (who owns the land?) and criminal issues (was there grabbing?). The High Court held that it should not interfere and try to decide these facts itself.

3. No Quashing When the Trial is Almost Over

The Court noticed a pattern of delay. The petitioners had taken several adjournments before the Special Tribunal. In fact, the case had reached the stage of "final arguments." The High Court felt that filing a quashing petition at the very last moment, after delaying the trial for months, was not a sincere move.

4. The Goal of the Act must be Respected

The Court reminded everyone that the 2010 Act was passed to "arrest and curb" land grabbing activities that disturb public order. If the High Court started quashing every case where someone claimed "settled possession," the entire purpose of the Land Grabbing Act would be destroyed.

The High Court dismissed the petition of the Deka brothers. It vacated the stay order that had stopped the trial. This means the Special Tribunal, Kamrup can now pass its final judgment. The Court's message was loud and clear: The merits of the case—whether the petitioners are actually "grabbers" or "rightful owners"—must be proved in the witness box, not in a quashing petition.

Case Details:

Case: Khanindra Deka and Anr vs. The State of Assam and Anr
Case No: Crl.Pet./1243/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:132
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Mazumdar