HC: Proceedings not maintainable under Damage to Public Property Act
The same can be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction, the court has held.
: The Allahabad high court has reiterated that proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 are not maintainable against illegal encroachment on gram sabha land.
The same can be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction, the court has held.
Quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant Brahmdutt Yadav, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in the Munshi Lal and another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another case. In that case, it was held that “as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to gram sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute, as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court.”
In the present case, the lekhpal lodged an FIR at the Aurai police station of Bhadohi district against the applicant under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging that upon survey, he had found that the gram sabha land, which is a public property, had been encroached on by farmers nearby. It was alleged that there was damage to public property. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the high court.
During the court proceedings, the counsel for applicant argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction.
Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and another, the court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to “curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.”
The court, in its decision dated April 15, held that the continuation of process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and the court quashed the same.
