Complaint Filed by General Power of Attorney Holder Dismissed Due to Lack of Locus Standi and Evidence
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench has quashed a complaint filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, pertaining to allegations of illegal transfer of tribal land. The judgment was delivered by Justice Y.G. Khobragade on April 20, 2026, in the case of Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan v. State of Maharashtra.
The appeal was filed by Nijamoddin Mohamad Khan and others, challenging the order of the Special Court (SC & ST Act) dated May 16, 2025, which had initiated proceedings against them for offences under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Act. The appellants were accused of unlawfully transferring land belonging to Fakiri Kisan Gangave, a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
The crux of the case revolved around the locus standi of the complainant, who was the General Power of Attorney holder for Fakiri Kisan Gangave. The complainant alleged that the accused had encroached upon and illegally transferred land without the necessary permission from revenue authorities. However, the High Court found that the General Power of Attorney did not authorize the holder to file a criminal complaint on behalf of the tribal landowner.
Justice Khobragade noted that the original tribal landowner, Fakiri Kisan Gangave, did not file the complaint herself, raising questions about the locus standi of the complainant. The court emphasized that the complaint lacked substantial material and evidence to support the allegations of illegal land transfer, as required under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Further scrutiny of the case revealed that the Investigating Officer's report, sought under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, indicated no contravention of the provisions concerning tribal land. The land in question was classified as Class-1 land, not subject to restrictions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, undermining the accusations of illegal transfer.
The High Court criticized the trial court's decision to overlook crucial legal provisions and facts, leading to the issuance of process against the appellants. It concluded that the complaint was unsustainable in law due to the absence of locus standi and substantial evidence, thereby dismissing the proceedings.
This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to legal requirements in complaints filed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, particularly concerning the locus standi of complainants and the necessity for substantial evidence when alleging illegal transfer of tribal land.
Bottom line:-
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Locus standi of complainant - Complaint under Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the Act filed by a General Power of Attorney holder, not authorized to file criminal complaint on behalf of the tribal landowner - Complaint dismissed due to lack of locus standi and absence of substantial material to support allegations.
Statutory provision(s): Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g); Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Sections 36 and 36A; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 202.
