Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1125 (GAU)

XXX v. State of Assam

2017-08-17

KALYAN RAI SURANA, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Kalyan Raisurana, J. This criminal reference under Section 395(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been received from the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati. 2. By virtue of an order dated 08.08.2016, reference was made on the following questions in connection with the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010:- (i) Whether the provision of Section 10(2) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India so far the said provision prohibits proceeding with the criminal trial of a person alleged to have committed an offence of land grabbing as defined under Section 2(e) of the said Act in case he stakes a proprietary claim over the land allegedly grabbed by him and in view of the fact that section 3 of the said Act makes an act of land grabbing a cognizable offence? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, is arbitrary and against the rule of law and therefore, in the teeth of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, unconstitutional inasmuch as it gives an unfettered discretion without any legislative guidance for taking or refusing to take cognizance of an alleged act of land grabbing? (iii) Whether the police or any investigating agency is empowered to file charge-sheet in connection with an alleged act of land grabbing alleging violation of Sections 4/5 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010. as there is no provision in the said Act for filing charge sheet and even if answer to this question is in the affirmative, does a Land Grabbing Special Tribunal created under the said Act have the power to take cognizance of an offence of land grabbing alleged to have been committed solitarily or in conjunction with offences under other penal statutes like the Indian Penal Code in view of the unambiguous language of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act? (iv) In the absence of any inherent power conferred on a Special Tribunal constituted under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, powers having been conferred upon this Tribunal by virtue of Section 9 of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, what course is open to this Tribunal in a case like the instant one where this Tribunal has already taken cognizance of offence under the said Act with or without cognizance of offences under other penal statutes and has proceeded with the criminal prosecution of the accused charged without making any enquiry as to whether the lis before it involves a question of civil liability as to ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land alleged to have been grabbed? (v) Is it permissible not to take cognizance of an offence under a penal statutory provision other than those provided under the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010, and in case the answer is in the affirmative, whether application of Section 10(2) of the said Act in such case and postponing the criminal trial of the accused till final decision in respect of ownership and title to, or lawful possession of the land grabbed would be permissible in view of question no. (i) above? 3. In this regard, we have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate and Standing Counsel of this Court assisted by Mr. B. Bora, learned Counsel. Also heard Mr. C. Chowdhury, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Assam, assisted by Mr. D. Das, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Both of them have submitted their written notes on conclusion of their respective arguments. 4. Learned Standing Counsel of this Court has submitted at the outset that there is no infirmity at all in the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the 2010 Act' for brevity). He has very painstakingly taken this court through the various provisions of the said 2010 Act. He has submitted that as per the preamble, the said 2010 Act was enacted to arrest and curb the unlawful activities of land grabbing and to protect the public order. He has very painstakingly taken this court through the various provisions of the said 2010 Act. He has submitted that as per the preamble, the said 2010 Act was enacted to arrest and curb the unlawful activities of land grabbing and to protect the public order. He has also submitted that as per his research, the State of Assam is the second State in the country to frame such law, the first in the country being the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and after State of Assam enacted such law, State of Karnataka by enacting the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011, became the third State in the country to have such a law to prevent land grabbing. 5. In the course of deliberations, we have been informed that although in each district of the State, Special Tribunal for taking up land grabbing cases has been constituted under the 2010 Act, but the State Government is yet to notify the Special Court as envisaged under Sections 13 and 14 of the said 2010 Act. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State has assured the Court that he would be taking up this matter with the State Government. 6. As this is not an adversarial litigation, we feel it may not be necessary to reproduce the lengthy arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel of this Court as well as by the learned Advocate General appearing for the State. However, we have taken note of the submissions so made while we proceed to answer the reference. 7. Before answering the reference, it would be appropriate to refer to some relevant provisions of the 2010 Act. The Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2010 having received the assent of the President on 28.10.2011, came into force from 1st April, 2012 and the said Act has been extended to the whole of Assam except the autonomous districts of Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao and Bodoland Territorial Council. Rules called the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 have also been framed for effective implementation of the 2010 Act. It is an act to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of Assam. Rules called the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules, 2013 have also been framed for effective implementation of the 2010 Act. It is an act to prohibit the activity of land grabbing in the State of Assam. The preamble of the said 2010 Act is quoted herein below:- "Preamble.- Whereas there are organized attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab, either by force or by deceitful means or otherwise, lands whether belonging to the Government, a Public Sector Undertaking, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf or any other private persons or a site of historical monuments etc.; And whereas it is necessary to arrest and curb immediately such unlawful activities of land grabbing; And whereas public order is adversely affected by such unlawful activity of land grabbers." 8. Preamble says that the 2010 Act has been enacted with the avowed objective of arresting and curbing unlawful activities of land grabbing which is adversely affecting the public order. Preamble says that the 2010 Act has been enacted with the avowed objective of arresting and curbing unlawful activities of land grabbing which is adversely affecting the public order. The term 'land grabber' and 'land grabbing' have been defined under Sections 2(d) and 2 (e) of the Assam Land Grabbing (Prohibit ion) Act, 2010, which are as under- "2(d) "Land grabber" means a person or a group of persons who occupy or attempts to occupy with or without the use of force, threat, intimidation or deceit, land over which he or they have no ownership, title or physical possession and includes any person who gives financial aid to any person or group of persons for taking up illegal possession of land over which he or they have no ownership or title and for construction of unauthorized structures thereon, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts, and also includes the successors-in-interests." "2(e) "Land grabbing" means every activity of land grabber to occupy or attempting to occupy with or without the use of force, threat, intimidation and deceit, any land (whether belonging to the Government, a Public Sector Undertaking, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf or any other private person) over which he or they have no ownership, title or physical possession, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such land or creating illegal tenancies or lease or licence, agreements or by constructing unauthorized structures thereon for sale or hire or use or occupation of such unauthorized structures and the term: grabbed land: shall be construed accordingly." Thus the expressions "land grabber" and "land grabbing" have been defined in a very broad sense by giving a wide meaning to include financiers and abettors within the sweep of "land grabber" and even an attempt within the ambit of "land grabbing". 9. Provisions of Section 3 reads as follows:- "3. Land Grabbing to be unlawful - Land grabbing in any form is hereby declared unlawful and any act connected with or arising out of land grabbing shall be a cognizable offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and punishable under this Act." Thus, land grabbing in any form and any act connected with or arising out of land grabbing has been declared as criminal offence. 10. Section 4 reads as follows:-"4. 10. Section 4 reads as follows:-"4. Prohibition of land grabbing: (1) No person shall commit or cause to be committed land grabbing. (2) No person shall, on or after the commencement of this Act, continue to be in occupation, otherwise than as a lawful tenant, of a grabbed land belonging to the Government, State Government undertaking, local authority, religious or charitable institution or endowment including a wakf, or other private person." 11. Provisions of Section 5 reads as follows:- "5. Penalty for other offence in connection with land grabbing: Whoever, with a view to grabbing land in contravention of the provision of this Act or in connection with any such land grabbing- (a) Sells or allots, or offers or advertises for sale or allotment, or has in possession for the purpose of sale or allotment, any land grabbed; (b) Instigates or incites any person to commit land grabbing; (c) Uses any land grabbed or causes or permits knowingly to be used for purpose connected with sale or allotment; or (d) Causes or procures or attempts to procure any person to do any of the above-mentioned acts shall, on conviction be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than two years which may extend to five years and with fine which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees." The broad sweep of the penal provision is indicative of the legislative intent to punish all those who are connected with the offence of land grabbing, directly or indirectly in the above manner. 12. Section 7 provides for constitution of Special Tribunal for the purpose of enquiry and trial of cases of land grabbing. For this purpose, the jurisdictional Court of District and Sessions Judge has been designated as the Special Tribunal which would include the Court of jurisdictional Additional District and Sessions Judge. 13. Powers and functions of Special Tribunals are dealt with in Section 8. As per subsection 1), every Special Tribunal shall have power to try all cases arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to ownership, title or possession of the land grabbed whether before or after commencement of the 2010 Act. Section 8(2) and Section 8(3) deal with taking of cognizance of the offence of land grabbing by a Special Tribunal. Section 8(2) and Section 8(3) deal with taking of cognizance of the offence of land grabbing by a Special Tribunal. Provisions of Sections 8(2) and 8(3) reads as follows:- "8(2) The Special Tribunal may, either suo motu, or on application made by any aggrieved person or any officer or authority, take cognizance of and try every case arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing, or with respect to the ownership and title to or lawful possession of, the land grabbed, whether before or after the commencement of this Act and pass such orders (including orders by way of interim directions) as it deems fit. 8(3) The Special Tribunal, for the purpose of taking cognizance of the case, consider the location, or extent or value of the land alleged to have been grabbed or of the substantial nature of the evil involved in the interest of justice required and any other relevant matter involved in the case: Provided that the Special Tribunal shall not take cognizance of any such case without hearing the petitioner or the aggrieved person, as the case may be." While still at Section 8, we may make a brief reference to sub-sections (4), (6) and (8) thereof. Sub-section (4) starts with a non-obstante clause. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, any case of land grabbing or the rentable issue of determination of title, ownership or possession of the land grabbed shall be triable in the Special Tribunal. Subsection (6) also starts with a non-obstante clause by empowering the Special Tribunal to frame charge and try all offences punishable under the 2010 Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, if it is so necessary after determination of civil liability. Sub-section (8) gives a time line for disposal of a trial under the 2010 Act; as far as possible, a trial should be decided within 12 months of institution and 6 months after framing of charge. This only indicates the special nature of the trial and the intent of the legislature to curb and punish the unlawful activity of land grabbing. 14. This only indicates the special nature of the trial and the intent of the legislature to curb and punish the unlawful activity of land grabbing. 14. Section 10(2), which is relevant, reads as follows:- "10(2) After taking cognizance of a case under sub-section (2) of Section 8, the Special Tribunal shall try and dispose of the civil liability at first and decide and pass order as to the title, ownership and lawful possession of the grabbed land whether before or after the commencement of this Act as it deems fit. After completion of the civil proceeding, if the Special Tribunal decides and pass order that the land in question has been grabbed, the Special Tribunal may order that the possession of the land be restored to the person whose land has been grabbed after evicting the land grabber or any other person who may be in possession of the land, if necessary by use of such force as may be required for the purpose: Provided that execution of the order for restoration of the possession of the grabbed land shall not be made till expiration of the period of appeal provided under section 13 of the Act. If within a reasonable time after the expiry of the appeal period no order of stay of execution has been received from the Special Court or produced before the Special Tribunal by any of the parties to the case, the Special Tribunal shall proceed for execution of its order and simultaneously frame charge against the land grabber to prosecute him for the alleged act of land grabbing: Provided further that in the event of preferring an appeal from the order of the Special Tribunal before the Special Court where stay of execution of the order has been made by the Special Court, the Special Tribunal shall not further proceed in the proceeding to prosecute the land grabber till final disposal of the appeal by the Special Court: Provided also that after hearing the appeal, if the Special Court decides the appeal against the alleged land grabber, in that event charge for prosecution against the land grabber, shall be framed by the Special Tribunal and proceed with the criminal proceeding for prosecution of the land grabber." 15. There is one more relevant provision which is Section 11. There is one more relevant provision which is Section 11. It says that in a proceeding relating to land grabbing, the presumption is that the accused is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by the accused would be on him. This section is a pointer to how seriously the legislature has viewed the menace of land grabbing in the State of Assam. 16. At the very outset, it must be remembered that it cannot be inferred that a statute framed by the Parliament or by the State Legislature is ultra vires the Constitution of India or in other words, the unconstitutionality of the law is not to be inferred. Presumption is always on the constitutionality of a statute. Not only that, the present judicial trend is that upon a challenge made, if a statute is held to be intra-vires the Constitution, the constitutional Courts may issue further directions for effective implementation of the provisions of the statute. In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote the following observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of I.T.C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp (1) SCC 476: "(195). Courts of today cannot and do not any longer remain passive with the negative attitude, merely striking down a law or preventing something being done. "Thou shall not do'f used to be the previous form of remedy encouraged by courts. But the new attitude is towards positive affirmative actions, directing people or authorities concerned that \thou shall do't' in this manner. While it is true that if a law is bad, the court must strike it down, if the law by and in its true perspective of a social purpose if implemented in a particular manner could be valid, then the court can and should ensure that implementation should be done in such particular manner and give directions to that effect. In the instant case the High court having found, with which finding we are in agreement, that basically and essentially the fee was justified on the theory of quid pro quo, the court was entitled to give positive direction in the manner the money should be spent." 17. In the instant case the High court having found, with which finding we are in agreement, that basically and essentially the fee was justified on the theory of quid pro quo, the court was entitled to give positive direction in the manner the money should be spent." 17. From a conjoint reading of the various provisions of the 2010 Act, what is discernible is that the main object of the 2010 Act is to protect the owner and possessor of the land from unlawful land grabbing and to punish the criminal land grabbers. The 2010 Act seeks to prohibit and punish land grabbing, which has now become a menace in the State. It is also seen that if the alleged land grabber claims or puts up a defence of proprietary right or ownership or possessory right over the land in question, then the civil liability would be adjudicated first and if he fails to establish any such right, then criminal proceeding for prosecution of the land grabber would recommence. Thus, as per the scheme of the 2010 Act, upon cognizance being taken of the criminal offence of land grabbing, the Special Tribunal would proceed with the prosecution of the land grabber not only for the purpose of punishing him but also to recover the grabbed land from the land grabber for restoring possession of the grabbed land to the person from whom the land was grabbed. If in this proceeding, the alleged land grabber takes up the defence of ownership, possession or better claim over the land in question, the Special Tribunal shall first determine that question and keep the criminal trial in abeyance till such determination. However, we have to bear in mind that the principal object of the 2010 Act is not to adjudicate right, title or possession over the land in question. Therefore, by its very nature, such determination of civil liability has to be of a summary nature and cannot partake the character of a full fledged civil suit, which is ordinarily a long drawn affair, thereby frustrating the very purport and object of the 2010 Act. Therefore, by its very nature, such determination of civil liability has to be of a summary nature and cannot partake the character of a full fledged civil suit, which is ordinarily a long drawn affair, thereby frustrating the very purport and object of the 2010 Act. This is so because the alleged land grabber had not approached the civil court for declaration of his right, title, interest or possession over the land in question; it is only when he is prosecuted as a land grabber that he takes up the plea of better claim over the land in question as his defence. It is for facilitating a smooth criminal trial, that the above defence, if taken, would be taken up and determined first in a summary manner having regard to the mandate of the 2010 Act. Thus, the legislature did not intend to prohibit proceeding of the criminal trial of a person alleged to have committed an offence of land grabbing, rather it postpones the criminal trial till adjudication of civil liability of the alleged land grabber in a summary manner as discussed above. In that view of the matter, the procedure prescribed in Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act cannot be said to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The procedure prescribed cannot also be said to be hit by the protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. Under the provisions of the 2010 Act, as discussed above, the criminal trial would be postponed or kept in abeyance till determination of the civil liability in a summary manner, if taken up as a defence plea by the accused having regard to the requirement of Section 11 whereby and where under presumption would be that land grabbing had taken place and burden would be on the accused to prove otherwise. 18. Having discussed the above, we may refer to the provisions of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It provides as follows:- "6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. - (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. It provides as follows:- "6. Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property. - (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought - (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. (3) No appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed. (4) Nothing in this section shall bar any person from suing to establish his title to such property and to recover possession thereof." 19. It is a well settled law that even if a person is a trespasser, he cannot be dispossessed of his possession over a land without following the due process of law. We find that even if a person sets up his bona-fide title as a defence, still a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 would be maintainable. However, under sub-section (4) of Section 6, there is no bar for a person to sue in order to establish his title over such property and to recover possession thereof. Similarly, in a proceeding under the 2010 Act, the Special Tribunal having jurisdiction shall first determine the civil liability, if a defence plea is taken, in a summary manner for a limited purpose and then decide the criminal culpability of the person who is the alleged wrong-doer. By setting up a defence of title, no person becomes entitled to take law into his own hands and unlawfully dispossess another person from a plot of land without following the due process of law. 20. Hence, in answering the reference question No. 1, on the basis of above discussions, we unhesitatingly hold that the provisions of Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act is not unconstitutional. We are unable to find anything in Section 10(2) of the said Act, which renders it ultra-vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. Hence, in answering the reference question No. 1, on the basis of above discussions, we unhesitatingly hold that the provisions of Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act is not unconstitutional. We are unable to find anything in Section 10(2) of the said Act, which renders it ultra-vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rather, as discussed in paragraph 15 above, the 2010 Act prohibits unlawful action of forceful and illegal dispossession of a citizen from land by unlawful act of land grabbing and therefore, protects law-abiding citizens from unlawful activity of land-grabbing. If a plea of better claim to title or possession over the land is taken by the accused in his defence, the civil liability is to be determined first in a summary manner having regard to the mandate of Section 11 as per which burden is on the accused to prove that he is not the land grabber or that no act of land grabbing has taken place, and thereafter, the criminal culpability of the accused would be adjudicated which cannot be said to be contrary to the principles governing Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A person indulging in criminal activity in the form of land grabbing is not being condemned unheard and, as such, the provision of Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act cannot be said to be hit by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Rather the provision of Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act, as explained above, is in tune with the requirement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the first question referred is answered in the negative by holding that the provision of Section 10(2) of the 2010 Act does not violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 21. In so far as the question No.(ii) is concerned, all that Section 8(3) of the 2010 Act says is that for the purpose of taking cognizance, the Special Tribunal may consider the location of the land alleged to have been grabbed or the estimated value of the land or the nature of land grabbing or such other relevant matter. This is very much in order and there is nothing unusual about it. Regarding the proviso, it says that the Special Tribunal shall not take cognizance of a complaint without hearing the petitioner or the aggrieved person. This is very much in order and there is nothing unusual about it. Regarding the proviso, it says that the Special Tribunal shall not take cognizance of a complaint without hearing the petitioner or the aggrieved person. As per sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the 2010 Act, the Special Tribunal may take cognizance either suo-moto or on application by the aggrieved person. If the complaint is by way of application, then the Special Tribunal shall hear the petitioner and in case of suo-moto proceeding, the Special Tribunal shall hear the aggrieved party. The hearing envisaged in the proviso has to be a preliminary hearing, and not a substantial hearing, only for the purpose of the Special Tribunal prima facie satisfying itself that it is a fit case for taking cognizance. Thus, Section 8(3) of the 2010 Act read as a whole provides for a prima facie satisfaction of the Special Tribunal before taking cognizance only to ensure that cognizance is not taken mechanically and that there is application of mind before taking cognizance. This provision is akin to Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which provides for examination of the complainant while taking cognizance of a complaint. Therefore, there is no question of the provisions of Section 8(3) of the 2010 Act being arbitrary or against the rule of law or being unconstitutional. This question is answered accordingly. 22. This brings us to the third question. Question No. (iiii) has got two parts. The first part relates to competence of the police or any investigating agency to file charge-sheet in connection with an alleged act of land grabbing since there is no such provision in the 2010 Act for filing charge-sheet. The second part of the question relates to competence of a Special Tribunal constituted under the 2010 Act to take cognizance of an offence of land grabbing committed solitarily or in conjunction with offences under other penal statutes like the Indian Penal Code. 22.1. We may address the first part of question No.(iii) first. Under Section 7 of the 2010 Act, a Special Tribunal has the jurisdiction to enquire into any alleged act of land grabbing and trial of cases and while doing so, it has the power to determine ownership, title or possession of the land grabbed. 22.1. We may address the first part of question No.(iii) first. Under Section 7 of the 2010 Act, a Special Tribunal has the jurisdiction to enquire into any alleged act of land grabbing and trial of cases and while doing so, it has the power to determine ownership, title or possession of the land grabbed. Section 8( 1) of the 2010 Act clearly provides that every Special Tribunal shall have power to try all cases arising out of any alleged act of land grabbing or with respect to title or possession of the land grabbed whether before or after commencement of the 2010 Act. 22.2. As per sub-section (4) of Section 8, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any case in respect of an alleged act of land grabbing or incidental determination of title or possession of any land grabbed shall be triable in the Special Tribunal. Sub-Section (6) of Section 8 is relevant and is extracted hereunder:- "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it shall also be lawful for the Special Tribunal to frame charge and try all offences punishable under this Act, if in the opinion of the Special Tribunal it is so necessary after delivery of its decision and other in the civil liability where prima facie it appears to the Special Tribunal that a particular person or a group of persons are responsible for commission of an offence of land grabbing punishable under this Act." 22.3. Thus, from a careful analysis of subsection (6) of Section 8 of the 2010 Act, it is quite clear that the Special Tribunal has the jurisdiction to frame charge and thereafter try all offences punishable under the 2010 Act. Question of framing of charge will only arise after the Special Tribunal carries out enquiry and comes to a prima facie satisfaction that a triable offence is made out. While doing so, the Special Tribunal will be guided by Section 11 of the 2010 Act as per which once cognizance is taken, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person, who is alleged to have grabbed the land, is a land grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person. Reverting back to Section 7 of the 2010 Act, it is obvious that Special Tribunals are constituted for the purpose of enquiry into acts of land grabbing and trial of such cases. 22.4. As per Section 12 of the 2010 Act, any case pending before any Court or other authority immediately before coming into force of the 2010 Act which involves any act of land grabbing, shall stand transferred to the Special Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the alleged grabbed land is situated. 22.5. Thus, if the provisions of Sections 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the 2010 Act are read in conjunction, what emerges is that in case of an offence of land grabbing and the related offences as described in Section 5 of the 2010 Act, the authority competent to enquire into and try the offence of land grabbing is the Special Tribunal. It is for the Special Tribunal to frame charge and thereafter try all offences punishable under the 2010 Act. Going by the language of Section 12, if any case involving any act of land grabbing was pending before the police or other investigating agency at the commencement of the 2010 Act, such case would stand transferred to the jurisdictional Special Tribunal. Having regard to the non-obstante clause employed in sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the 2010 Act, it is evident that when it is a case of land grabbing, exclusive jurisdiction is vested in the Special Tribunal. In such a scenario, role of the police or any investigating agency is ruled out. Therefore, answer to this part of the question, to our mind, does not arise at all. 22.6. Regarding the second part of question No.(iii), we may note that the 2010 Act, more particularly, Sections 3,4 and 5 thereof, clearly provides that the Special Tribunal is competent to enquire into and try the offence of land grabbing and other offences in connection with land grabbing, such as, those specifically mentioned in Section 5. The other offences in connection with land grabbing are specifically mentioned in Section 5, such as, selling or possessing for the purpose of selling any grabbed land, instigating or inciting any person to commit land grabbing, etc. The other offences in connection with land grabbing are specifically mentioned in Section 5, such as, selling or possessing for the purpose of selling any grabbed land, instigating or inciting any person to commit land grabbing, etc. However, in so far offences of other penal statutes like the Indian Penal Code are concerned, the 2010 Act is silent; rather, there is no specific provision in the 2010 Act to take cognizance of offence of other penal statutes. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid sections clearly provide that the enquiry and trial should be confined to the offences mentioned therein. It is trite that a penal statute has to be construed strictly. To elaborate on this, let us take an example. While committing the offence of land grabbing, which is a punishable offence under the 2010 Act, a murder takes place. In such a scenario, the Special Tribunal would not have the jurisdiction to try the offence of murder but would have to confine its enquiry and trial to the offence of land grabbing. While the offence of murder would be investigated by the police and thereafter tried by the competent Court, the Special Tribunal would proceed with the offence of land grabbing as per the 2010 Act. There would be no legal bar for parallel proceeding of two trials in two different fora as both are distinct and separate offences triable under separate statutes. 22.7. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of some other statutes empowering the Special Court or Special Judge constituted under such statute to try other offences. There would be no legal bar for parallel proceeding of two trials in two different fora as both are distinct and separate offences triable under separate statutes. 22.7. At this stage, we may refer to the provisions of some other statutes empowering the Special Court or Special Judge constituted under such statute to try other offences. (i) Section 28(2) of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 provides that "While trying an offence under this Act, a Special Court shall also try an offence other than the offence referred to in sub-section (1), with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, be charged at the same trial." (ii) Section 36A(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 provides that "When trying an offence under this Act, a special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under this Act with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial." (iii) Section 4(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides that "When trying any case under this Act, a special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be charged at the same trial." 22.8 Such identical provision is conspicuous by its absence in the 2010 Act. Therefore, legislative intent is quite clear. Legislature had enacted the 2010 Act only to expeditiously deal with the offence of land grabbing and other offences in connection with land grabbing such as the ones mentioned in Section 5 of the 2010 Act by creating a special procedure. Therefore, a Tribunal under the 2010 Act is not empowered to try offences other than those under the 2010 Act. 22.9. Question No.(iii) is answered accordingly. 23. Regarding question No.(iv), here also, there are two parts. The first part is what happens in a case where the Special Tribunal has taken cognizance of the offence of land grabbing under the 2010 Act with or without cognizance of offence under other penal statues. Second part of the question is what happens when the Special Tribunal proceeds with the criminal prosecution of the accused without making any enquiry as to whether the case involves question of civil liability. 23.1. Second part of the question is what happens when the Special Tribunal proceeds with the criminal prosecution of the accused without making any enquiry as to whether the case involves question of civil liability. 23.1. Reverting to the first part of question No. (iv), as discussed above, a Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under other penal statutes. In such a case, Special Tribunal will proceed after taking cognizance of the offence of land grabbing or other offences in connection with land grabbing. In so far other offences outside the purview of the 2010 Act are concerned, it is for the police or other investigating agencies mandated by the other penal statues which will investigate the other offences where after law will take its own course. 23.2. Regarding second part of question No. (iv), we have already elaborately discussed above that the core object of the 2010 Act is to prohibit and punish land grabbing. The 2010 Act is a special legislation dealing with a special problem which has assumed endemic proportion. It seeks to ensure dispensation of speedy justice to the victims of land grabbing by evolving a special procedure. In the course of enquiry and trial by the Special Tribunal regarding the offence of land grabbing, if the alleged land grabber puts up a defence of proprietary right or ownership or possessory right over the land in question then only the Special Tribunal shall embark upon a summary adjudication of the civil liability first. Adjudication of civil liability, once cognizance of the offence of land grabbing is taken, is not automatic. A Special Tribunal is not obliged or required to embark upon the exercise of determining civil liability in each and every case of land grabbing enquired into and tried by it. It is only when a plea is taken or a defence 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 the 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 to prove otherwise. This would be in consonance with the underlying principle governing Section 11 of the 2010 Act. This would be in consonance with the underlying principle governing Section 11 of the 2010 Act. However, if in a given situation, notwithstanding the plea or defence taken by the accused of having better civil claim over the land in question, the Special Tribunal proceeds with the criminal prosecution of the accused, at the stage when the same is brought to its notice, it may keep in abeyance the criminal prosecution and take up the defence plea of civil liability. After determining the said question in a summary manner and if such determination is in the negative in so far the accused is concerned, the Special Tribunal shall recommence the criminal trial at once. 23.3. Consequently, question No.(iv) is answered in the above manner. 24. Question No. (v) is interlinked with question Nos. (i) to (iv). No independent answer is necessary in so far this question is concerned as answers to question Nos.(i) to (iv) would cover this question as well. 25. Following the above discussions, the reference is decided accordingly. Registry to inform the referral Court.