Mohammad Tahzeeb vs. The State Of Assam And 2 Ors

Held

The Court held that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court on October 4, 2024 (rejecting the petitioner's zimma application) and September 27, 2024 (granting zimma to the Directorate of Geology and Mining and permitting auction) needed reconsideration. The Court found that the petitioner had produced necessary documents, including tax invoices, to establish his ownership of the coal and that no material had been collected by the investigating officer to suggest the coal was stolen property. Prima facie, the petitioner appeared to be the genuine purchaser. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the learned Court below and file a fresh petition for zimma. The learned Court below was instructed to consider this petition in accordance with the law and was granted liberty to fix the amount of an indemnity bond before granting zimma to the petitioner, considering the value of the coal. The issue regarding the legality of the seizure of immovable property under Section 106 of the BNSS was not expressly decided but was implicitly addressed by directing reconsideration of the zimma petition based on the petitioner's ownership documents.

Facts

The petitioner, Mohammad Tahzeeb, operates a coal processing and distribution business. His business premises, including a coal depot, were sealed, and coal along with other items were seized on July 15, 2024, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Margherita, without prior notice. The SDO (Civil) subsequently issued a notice to the landowner. Custody of the seized coal was handed over to the Lekhapani Police Station. The Directorate of Geology and Mining (DGM) sought zimma (custody) of the coal, which was granted by the trial court on September 27, 2024, citing potential hazards. The petitioner then filed a zimma petition on October 1, 2024, seeking custody of the coal, but it was rejected by the trial court on October 4, 2024, solely because zimma had already been granted to the DGM. The petitioner argues he has all necessary licenses and registrations for his business and legally purchased the coal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the seizure of the petitioner's premises, including land and buildings, by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) is legally valid, considering the provisions of Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Supreme Court's ruling in Nevada Properties Private Limited vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.? 2. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's zimma petition on October 4, 2024, without considering the documents submitted by the petitioner to prove ownership of the seized coal, solely on the ground that zimma had been previously granted to the Directorate of Geology and Mining? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the seizure of immovable property by a police officer is illegal under Section 106 of the BNSS, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Nevada Properties, which limits seizure powers to movable property. He argues that the trial court failed to consider his evidence of ownership and legal purchase of the coal, leading to an erroneous rejection of his zimma application. Revenue/State's arguments: The State submitted that zimma of the coal had already been granted to the Directorate of Geology and Mining. They noted that the seized coal was on the landowner's premises, and the landowner had not yet appeared before the investigating officer. The State suggested that the petitioner could approach the learned Trial Court with a fresh application for zimma, which could be considered in accordance with law. They also mentioned that the trial court had permitted the sale of the seized coal through auction.