@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Thomas P. Joseph, J.@mdashQuestion raised for a decision in this petition is whether cases pending in the criminal courts in the State with reference to the lands in ''Munnar area'' would stand transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the Munnar Special Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short, "the Tribunal Act")?.
2. Petitioner is accused in C.C. Nos. 49 of 2009, 50 of 2009, 51 of 2009, 52 of 2009, 53 of 2009 and 54 of 2009 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam (for short, "the Special Judge"), C.C. No. 171 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam and Crime No. 121 of 2005 of Pala Police Station. Of the above, Crime No. 121 of 2005 of Pala Police Station and C.C. No. 171 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam are cases instituted on complaints preferred by the aggrieved persons while, the other cases are charge sheeted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau alleging various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act") and the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Code"). The gist of allegations in C.C. No. 171 of 2005 and Crime No. 121 of 2005 is that Petitioner transferred Government lands making the complainants believe that he has absolute title over it, received sale consideration and thereby cheated the complainants. In the cases pending before the Special Judge it is alleged that some of the accused who were officials in the Registration Department in furtherance of their common intention with other accused created documents in respect of Government land as if it were private property for illegal consideration, such properties were assigned to the assignees there under and thereby committed offences punishable under the Act and Code. Contention raised by learned Counsel for Petitioner is that in view of the Tribunal Act there is an automatic transfer of the said cases to the Tribunal as that Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to decide the dispute whether the lands involved in the said cases and coming within Munnar area are Government lands. Learned Counsel has referred me to Sections 4 and 5 of the Tribunal Act. In response it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that "dispute" referred to in the Tribunal Act is dispute of a civil nature as to the ownership, possession and use etc., of property involved which hitherto were to be adjudicated by the Civil Court in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of CPC (for short, "the C.P.C.") and hence criminal cases even if it pertained to Government lands in Munnar area do not stand transferred to the Tribunal as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate criminal cases. Learned Public Prosecutor has referred me to Sections 7 and 10 of the Act and the definition of ''Court'' and ''Dispute'' in Section 2(c) and (d) of the Tribunal Act. It is also contended that even with respect to cases friable by the Tribunal, it is for the courts concerned to transfer the cases to the Tribunal as there is an automatic transfer. My attention is brought to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
3. I shall refer to the provisions of the Tribunal Act to understand the rival contentions. Section 4 of the said Act reads:
Transfer of disputes to the Tribunal: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or order, decree or judgment, all disputes in respect of Munnar area pending before any court or any other authority except the High Court and the Supreme Court shall stand transferred to the Tribunal immediately on the constitution of the Tribunal under this Act.
The expression "Authority" is defined in Section 2(a) of the Tribunal Act as under:
Section 2(a) - ''Authority'' means the authorities which have been constituted by the Government to decide the disputes in Munnar area and includes any Officer of the Government before whom disputes relating to Munnar area are pending.
The expression "Court" is defined in Section 2(c) as under;
Section 2(c) - ''Court'' means the civil courts in the State of Kerala.
Section 2(d) defines the expression "dispute" as under:
Section 2(d) - ''Dispute'' means all disputes with respect to ownership, possession, use or any rights whatsoever over or concerning the land in Munnar area as well as all constructions and other uses of the land in such area which are pending before any authority or courts.
The expression "Munnar area" is defined in Section 2(g) as under:
Section 2(g) - ''Munnar area'' means all lands comprised in the villages of Chinnakkanal, Kannan Devan Hills, Santhanpara, Vellathooval, Aanavilasam, Pallivasal, Aanaviratty and Bison Valley in Devikulam and Udumpanchola Taluks in Idukki District.
4. It appears to me from the definition of ''dispute'' in Section 2(d) of the Tribunal Act that it refers to dispute of a civil nature with respect to ownership, possession, use or any right whatsoever over or concerning any land in Munnar area and all construction and other uses of land in such area. This is clear from the preamble of the Tribunal Act, the relevant provision of which is extracted hereunder:
AND WHEREAS, the land in Munnar area is rich in flora and fauna requiring preservation;
And Whereas, there has been large scale encroachments of lands in Munnar area, conversion of land, use of land for purposes other than for purposes assigned and indiscriminate exploitation of land and other natural resources in Munnar area;
And Whereas the Government has taken steps under various enactments for evicting the encroachers, demolishing unauthorised or illegal construction of other structures in or upon Munnar area;
And Whereas, a large number of cases and disputes are pending before the various authorities, courts including High Court of Kerala;
And Whereas; many of the disputes are factual disputes which necessitates detailed examination of documents and adducing evidence;
And Whereas, the Government intends to settle once and for all these disputes by constituting a Special Tribunal for taking a final decision thereon within a fixed time-limit;
It is evident from the above and definition of ''Court'' and ''dispute'' extracted above that the object of the Tribunal Act and Constitution of the Tribunal is effective and speedy adjudication of disputes regarding Munnar area pending in the various civil courts in the State of Kerala or other authority.
5. The Tribunal is not constituted to adjudicate criminal cases where the question to be decided is whether any offence as alleged is committed though incidentally the criminal court may have to decide on the nature of ownership of the land involved as well. Such questions are only ancillary to the question whether any offence as alleged is committed. The power of the criminal court to decide such ancillary question is not taken away by the Tribunal Act. I must also bear in mind that the decision of the criminal court regarding ownership of land cannot bind the civil court or the Tribunal as the case may be.
6. This view gets support from Sections 7 and 10 of the Tribunal Act as well. Section 7 says:
The Tribunal shall, for the purpose of exercising any power conferred by or under this Act, have the powers of a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters, namely:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any persons and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;
(d) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses or for local investigation;
(e) inspecting any property or thing concerning which any decision has to be taken;
(f) requisitioning of any public record or copy thereof from any court or office, and
(g) any other matter as may be prescribed.
That power does not take in a power to try an offence as per procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, convict and sentence the offender.
Section 10 says:
Bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to decide or deal with any question or to determine any matter which is, by or under this Act, required to be decided or dealt with or to be determined by the Tribunal.
7. There is no ouster of jurisdiction of the criminal courts. I stated that the ''Court'' referred in Section 2(c) is the Civil Court in the State of Kerala. Thus, a reading of the relevant provisions of the Tribunal Act makes it clear that the cases which would stand transferred to the Tribunal on its constitution are cases in volving disputes of a civil nature in respect of ownership, possession, use etc., of land in Munnar area pending in the Civil Courts and other authority and not cases pending in the criminal courts in the State. I therefore reject the contention of learned Counsel that criminal cases pending in the criminal courts where ownership, possession or other issues as stated in Section 2(d) of the Tribunal Act would also stand transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication.
8. The argument advanced by learned Public Prosecutor that at any rate this Court cannot at the first instance order transfer of cases in the subordinate courts to the Tribunal, also requires consideration. Going by Section 5 of the Act the power of the High Court is to transfer any case pending before it in respect of Munnar area and which the Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate as per the Tribunal Act for final decision and not in respect of cases pending in the subordinate courts. Section 4 of the Act dealing with transfer of the cases pending in the courts in the State or other authority does not empower the High Court to transfer the said cases. Instead, the said provision contemplates automatic transfer of such cases on constitution of the Tribunal under the Tribunal Act. That is the view taken by the Division Bench in M/s. Kantian Devan Hills Plantations Co. Pvt. Ltd''s case referred to above. Hence, initially it is for those courts and other authority to transmit records of the eases to the Tribunal. If such court or authority refuses to do so, then the High Court having supervisory jurisdiction over such courts or authority could exercise its power in the matter.
In the light of the above, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case fails. It is dismissed.
