Date : 08.05.2025 Heard Mr. P.P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department for the respondent nos. 1 & 2; Mr. H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3 & 4; and Mr. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5, 6, 8 & 9. As per Order dated 23.04.2025 of the Lawazima Court, service of notice upon the respondent no. 7 is complete. None has, however, appeared for the respondent no. 7 today on call.

Page No.# 4/6

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed on 30.01.2023 to challenge a Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon as a Special Tribunal under the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 in Land Grabbing Case no. 12/2015.

3. This Court in a Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2024 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 558/2024 [ Abad Ali and 3 others vs. the State of Assam and 3 others] has held that a Judgment and Order passed by the Special Tribunal under the provisions of the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010 is a Judgment and Order of a civil court, in view of the deeming provisions contained in Section 9 along with the provisions contained in Section 7, Section 8 and Section 10 of the Assam Land Grabbing [Prohibition] Act, 2010. It has been further held that a Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal constituted under the Land Grabbing Act rendered by following the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 deciding the civil liability is a judicial order of a civil court and as such, a challenge to such an order is not maintainable in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing of a petition styled as a writ petition. Consequently, a challenge to a judicial order could lie by way of appeal or revision or under Article 227 and not by way of a writ petition under Article 226.

4. In view of the afore-mentioned Judgment passed in Abad Ali and others vs. the State of Assam and others , the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is found to be not maintainable in the present Page No.# 5/6 form.

5. In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil , reported in [2010] 8 SCC 329, it has been observed that in any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and others , reported in [2018] 15 SCC 356, the respondents had resorted to remedy of writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In that context, it has been held in view of the finding that the order passed by the District Judge as an Appellate Officer under Section 9 of the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants] Act, 1971 is an order of the subordinate court, that the challenge thereto must ordinarily proceed only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. Be that as it may. Rule 2 of Chapter IV-B [Rules for application] under Article 227[1] of the Constitution of India] of the Gauhati High Court Rules, as amended, has inter alia provided that an application under Article 227 is to be registered as Civil Revision Petition [CRP Art. 227].

7. It is well settled that whereas a law made by the legislature is always prospective in nature unless it has been specifically stated in the statute itself about its retrospective operation, the reverse is true for the law which is laid down by a Constitutional Court, or law as it is interpreted by the Court. The Judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. [ Kanishk Sinha and another vs. The State of West Bengal and another , 2025 Page No.# 6/6 INSC 278].

8. As mentioned above, the instant writ petition was filed on 30.01.2023 to assail the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2021. The writ petition was filed prior to the Judgment and Order rendered in Abad Ali [supra] on 27.02.2024.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has beseeched that the present petition may be converted to a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As this Court has already observed that a petition to challenge a Judgment and Order of the Special Tribunal constituted under the Land Grabbing Act deciding the civil liability, can only be maintainable in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; and such a petition is to be registered as a Civil Revision Petition [CRP Art. 227] , the prayer is found just and in the interest of justice. The Registry is therefore, to register this petition accordingly and to list the petition thereafter, before the appropriate bench.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant