Land ownership decided in courts, not in fields through 'clang of swords': HC

A land’s ownership is determined in the courts of law and not in the fields through the clang of swords or the echoes of firearms, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. Justice Namit Kumar has added that the moment a person takes justice in his own hands, "he ceases to seek it".

Justice Kumar also made it clear that the act of taking law into one’s own hands by attacking people with weapons to forcibly seize possession of land “cannot be permitted in an agriculturist State like Punjab.”

The assertions came as the Bench dismissed an anticipatory bail plea in an attempt to murder case registered following alleged attempt to take forcible possession of disputed properties, while observing that conduct – if left unchecked – would corrode the rule of law and the very faith of people in the justice system.

“If acts of this nature, wherein individuals attempt to take forcible possession of disputed properties through violence and intimidation, are not dealt with firmly, it would set a dangerous precedent and send an adverse message to the society at large, thereby undermining the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system,” the Bench ruled.

Justice Kumar, during the course of hearing, was told that the case arose from an FIR registered on April 9 registered under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act at Doraha police station in Ludhiana. The accused allegedly formed an unlawful assembly to forcibly take possession of disputed agricultural land. Opposing the bail plea, the State counsel argued that the petitioner was the main accused in the case and the injuries inflicted on the complainant were serious in nature. He further submitted that the petitioner was a habitual offender, already involved in 10 other criminal cases, and that the recovery of weapons used in the offence was still pending — making him undeserving of anticipatory bail

Justice Kumar added that the "filmisical style" of attacking people with sharp-edged weapons and inflicting incised wounds on the arm and ear of persons "just for the sake of taking forcible possession of a disputed chunk of land needs to be viewed seriously. It cannot be permitted in an agriculturist State like Punjab, where land disputes are frequent, to erode the sanctity of legal procedures.”

Justice Namit Kumar noted that the petitioner had purchased the land from one of the litigating parties just 21 days before the trial court dismissed a stay application in the same dispute. The Bench observed the civil suit over the same property “is still pending before the competent Civil Court to determine the question of rightful ownership and possession.”

Despite this, the petitioner brazenly resorted to violence.

"It only appears to be an act of taking law and order into his own hands by inflicting grievous injuries with sharp-edged weapons upon the person of the complainant party,” Justice Kumar observed.

The Bench held that the petitioner’s conduct could not be appreciated.

“Prima facie, this Court finds that though the petitioner has purchased the land in question, which was already under litigation between two other parties, even then his act and approach in adopting coercive measures instead of availing legal remedy to take possession cannot be appreciated by any stretch of imagination,” the Bench ruled.