HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Criminal Petition Nos.6981 and 7176 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: Crl.P.No.6981 of 2008 is filed by A.1 and Crl.P.No.7176 of 2008 is filed by A.2 to A.6, under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing further proceedings against them in CC No.520 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mahabubnagar. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The first respondent herein filed private complaint before the Special Tribunal (District Judge, Mahabubnagar) vide CFR No.438 of 2007 against the petitioners-A.1 to A.6, alleging the offence under Section 4 of the Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The said complaint was forwarded by the Sessions Judge by order dated 12.07.2007 to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mahabubnagar. There upon, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance of the offence under section 4 of the Act against the petitioners-A.1 to A.6 in CC No.520 of 2007. 4. According to the complainant, he is the owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.Nos.115/EE, 125/EE, 126/EE, 127/EE, 128/E, 129/E, 130/E, 176/E, 179/E and 181/E, admeasuring 2.01, 1.08, 0.30, 2.23, 4.18, 5.09, 4.00, 0.16, 0.24 and 0.15 acres and guntas respectively, situated at Nagarkadmoor village, Narva Mandal and in Sy.Nos.68/A, 69/A, 71/A, 116/A and 119/A admeasuring 1.02, 0.19, 6.30, 1.21 and 0.16 acres and guntas respectively, situated at Mittanandimalla village of Narva Mandal and that as the complainant was residing at Mahabubnagar and his sons were working in Military, there were no one to look after the lands. He alleges that in December 2006, he came to know that A.1 and his sons A.2 to A.4 in collusion with A.5 and A.6 tampered the revenue record pertaining to the above lands and got entered the names of A.2 to A.4 in the R.O.R. and on the strength of the said entries, A.1 to A.4 grabbed the land of the complainant and are in illegal possession of the same. The complainant further stated that he filed appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet vide No.384/07 and the same is pending. 5. The petitioners-A.1 to A.4 would contend that they are the absolute owners of the subject land and are in possession of the same in their own right and their names are also entered in R.O.R. and other revenue records as owners and possessors and the question of grabbing of the land does not arise. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that continuance further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.520 of 2007 is only an abuse of process of law, as admittedly, there is no determination of any legal right in favour of the complainant in respect of the subject land in any proceedings. 6. Section 4(1) of the Act states “no person shall commit or cause to be committed land grabbing”. Subs-section(3) of Section 4 of the Act states, whoever contravenes the provisions of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years, and with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. Section 2(e) of the Act defines ‘land grabbing’ as meaning every activity of grabbing of any land, whether belonging to the government, a local authority etc. or any other private person or by group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands etc. It is only such activity that constitutes offence of land grabbing under section 2(e) is prohibited under Section 4(1) of the Act and is rendered punishable under section 4(3) of the Act. 7. Section 10 of the Act deals with ‘burden of proof’, and states that where in any proceedings under this Act, a land is alleged to have been grabbed, and such land is prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person, the Special Court or as the case may be, 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. 8. A plain reading of Section 10 of the Act would disclose that initial burden is on the complainant whether it is government or a private person, to prima facie prove that the land grabbed belongs to him. Only when such burden is discharged, the presumption that the land is grabbed by other person would come into operation and then the burden shifts on such person, and the alleged land grabber has to prove that the land has not been grabbed by him. 9. Admittedly, the complainant has not initiated any civil proceedings before the Special Tribunal or Special Court against the petitioners for determination of the alleged legal rights in the property. No such determination or entitlement of the complainant in respect of the subject land has taken place. 10. Rule 14 of the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Rules 1988 states as follows: “If any bench of the Special Court trying a case of land grabbing on an application under section 8 of the Act, considers that the criminal liability should also be determined simultaneously, it shall place the papers before the Chairman for entrustment of criminal trial to another bench. The judgment in the criminal case shall not however be delivered until the proceedings on the rights over the property involved are settled.” 11. A perusal of the above rule would indicate that the criminal case shall have to await the result of the civil proceedings wherein the rights over the property are determined. The basis for launching prosecution is that the complainant is the absolute owner of the land and the said person without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally take possession of the land has committed activity amounting to land grabbing. Obviously, the criminal Court cannot determine the legal rights of the parties nor declare the rights of the parties over the subject land, nor decide upon their lawful entitlement. Such determination or adjudication of the dispute regarding the title has to necessarily take place only in appropriate proceedings before the Special Court or Special Tribunal as the case may be. In the absence of any such proceedings initiated by the complainant against the petitioners for determination of his rights in the property or for adjudication of the dispute regarding lawful entitlement, filing of the present complaint alleging the offences under section 4(1) of the Act is pre-mature. 12. In fact, even as per the averments in the complaint, the name of the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 have been entered in R.O.R., as against the subject land. The complainant alleges that the names of the petitioners-A.1 to A.4 came to be entered in the revenue records on account of collusion. Except making a bald allegation that the complainant is the owner and pattedar of the land, the complainant has not disclosed as to how and in what manner and by which document he acquired title to the property and came into possession of the subject land and the complaint is bereft of any particulars pertaining to the said allegations. Further, the question as to whether or not, the entries in the revenue records are genuine would arise for consideration in appropriate proceedings, if initiated for determination of the rights over the property. But no such proceedings have so far been initiated by the complainant. Prima-facie, the petitioners-A.1 to A.4, are shown to be the owners and possessors of the subject land in the revenue record. The complainant, without seeking determination of his alleged rights in the property and there being no adjudication of the dispute regarding lawful entitlement, continuance of further proceedings against the petitioners-A.1 to A.6 for the alleged offence under Section 4(1) of the Act is not permissible. The contents of the complaint read as a whole and even if taken on their face value, do not prima-facie attract the ingredients of the alleged offences under Section 4(1) of the Act. It is therefore, considered fit case where inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked for quashing proceedings in CC No.520 of 2007 against the petitioners-A.1 to A.6 and they are accordingly quashed. 13. In the result, both the criminal petitions are allowed. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 17.11.2011 bss