Land Grabbing: Transfer of 864 cases pending in civil courts to the jurisdictional courts – Original complainant in case pending on the file of the Special Court for Land Grabbing Cases, filed petition before the High Court, seeking transfer of the said case from the Special Court to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate – Allowed/disposed of, by the High Court – Thereafter, on ‘mentioning’ made by the Additional Public Prosecutor in the said disposed of petition, the Single Judge of the High Court directed transfer of 82 and 782 cases/final reports filed respectively, pending on the files of the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Courts – In the said orders, no proceedings were pending before the Single Judge, and none of the parties to the cases ordered to be transferred were parties before the High Court – Sustainability of – Held: Not sustainable – It cannot be understood, how in a disposed of matter with respect to only one case, further orders could have been passed by the High Court transferring approximately 864 cases pending in different Special Courts in different districts, to the concerned jurisdictional Courts that too, on a ‘special mentioning’ – Said procedure adopted by the Single Judge is unknown to law – Practice of passing such orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter is deprecated – Impugned judgment and orders passed by the Single Judge of the High Court directing transfer of 864 cases from the Special Courts to the jurisdictional Magistrates, being wholly without jurisdiction, are quashed and set aside – However, would be subject to the decision of this Court in the pending proceedings against the order by the High Court quashing the Government Order creating Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells, which was stayed by this Court, whereby the jurisdiction of the Special Courts to deal with the Land Grabbing Cases continues – Judicial deprecation. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Power of High Courts under – Held: Though the powers of the High Court u/s.
482 are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section – High Courts need to be more circumspect before passing such orders.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.