Hyderabad High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI ORDER: CRIMINAL PETITION No.12289 ot 2023 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 o't Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in C.C.No.13510 ol 2021 on the file of the learned Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No.99 of 2021 of Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for short'the Act')

2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. Perused the record

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the subject property i.e., Houses bearing Municipal Nos.16-2-7381141N3 and 16-2-7381141N4, situated in Plot No.37 (Part 1/B) and admeasuring 141 square yards, falling within T.S.No.5/1 , Block-F, Ward No.170, and correspond to Sy.No.318/'l of Gaddiannaram Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad, is recorded as 'Kharij Khata' i.e., Government land. At the time when the land was vacant, a notice board had been erected indicating the status of 2 the land as 'This land belongs to Government. Tr rspassers will be prosecuted'. However, the petitioner-accused allegr dly removed the notice board, unlawfully constructed a compound wall rlong with a small room in the said land. Upon noticing the unauthorize< construction, the de facto complainant lodged the present complaint aga nst the petitioner- accused

4. Submissions made by the learned counsel fc,t the petitioner: 4:,1. The petitioner is the absolute owner and po:;;essor of subject property, having purchased the same from one Mrs . Nazeem Banu, through registered sale deed bearing document No.54..1 of 2019, dated

20.06.2019. When the Revenue officials interfered witl her possession, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19181 of 2019 before this Court. The petitioner's vendors have also filed W.P.No.9931 of 2015 before this Court in respect of the entire property i.e., land er measuring 1875 square yards in Municipal No.16-2-738/14. In W.P.No ( 931 of 20'15, this Court has granted interim order in favour of the F,( titioners therein, restraining the respondents therein and also permitt: J the petitioners therein to proceed with the construction in accor lance with the sanctioned plan.

4.2. ln respect of the land in Sy.No.318/1 , civil disprr tes are pending before this Court and this Court has passed several nterim orders in / 3 favour of the petitioners therein. Without considering the same, the police have filed mechanically filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein, basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.1-Tahsildar.

4.3. The Revenue officials/Government have filed Land Grabbing Cases in respect of land in Sy.No.318/1 , however, the same were dismissed. Questioning the said orders, the Government has preferred an Appeal before this Court. ln the said appeal, this Court has granted status quo in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.04.17 guntas in Sy.No.318/1 . Though respondent No.'l alleged that there is criminal trespass over the Government land, it is the version of the petitioner that he is the original and rightful owner of the subject property and that being so, the question of trespass does not even arise.

4.4. ln support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State of Gujarat and othersl and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph No.17, wherein, it is held as follows: "17. ln our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civit in nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest inducement for the delivery of propefty or breach of trust by the appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The purely civil dispute, is sought lo be given a colour of a ciminal offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. lt does not meet the strict standard of proof required lo susfa,n a criminat ' (2ol l) 7 scc 59 4 accusation. ln such type of cases, / rs aecess,a y to draw a distinction between ciiit wrong and ciminat wron(t as has been 2g!!,!-?uv hetd by this Couri in oev.iaia'i".''si.t"''.r u.p. -ii)ou""a l!?99e ,? scc 4sst, retevant pan tnireoi' ,l hereinbelow

27. ; . A distinction must be made between a civ,l ,vronq and a c::yi:at wrong .when dispute oa*eei ini pi,ti"'n',,'riirrZ rry ctvtl wrong and not a ciminat wrong. the coutts *ii,r'i,i'i"rmt , " p.erson to be harassed atthough n6 cusu i;, ;i;;;; ,o"nilun"" or the offence has been made out.,.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant publi: prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that the subject land in )y No.31B/1 is Government land, however, the petitioner claimed that she had purchased the same through registered documents. Tlrr re are specific allegations against the petitioner. A[ the ailegations eveiled in the compraint as we, as in the charge sheet are subject merl er of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedingr; at this stage. Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition. 6' The aregation against the petitioner is that she has t espassed into the Government land and raised unauthorized constructir) ts. ln support of her craim, the petitioner fired rink documents and regists.ed sare deed bearing document No.544.1 of 2019, dated 20.06.2019, ,rhich disclose that she has purchased the subject land from one Nazeer r Banu, for a varid sare consideration' Hence, it is evident that the perr tioner is the absolute owner and possessor ofthe subject property. The 1 etitioner has filed w.P.No.191g't of 2019 before this court, when the Rerr.rnue officiars interfered with her possession. However, the same was subsequenfly withdrawn.

7. The petitioner's vendors have filed W.p.No.9931 of 2015 before this Court in respect of entire property i.e., land admeasuring .1g75 square yards in Municipal No.16-2-r38r14 situated at Gaddiannaram, Malakpet and this court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioners therein, restraining the respondents therein and also permitted the petitioners therein to proceed with the construction in accordance with sanctioned plan.

8. The Revenue officiars have fired w.p No.167g9 of 2oll before this Court, wherein, this Court has passed an interim direction to stop the constructions in relation to the land claimed by the Government i.e., Ac. 1 09.21 guntas in Sy.No.31 8/1 situated at Gaddiannaram/Asmangadh, Hyderabad, on 20.06.201 1. However, when the similarly situated persons as that of the petitioner herein, who possess land in Sy.No.31g/1 , have filed interlocutory applications in the said writ petition, after considering the submissions made by the learned counser for the parties, the said interim order, dated 20.06.2011 was modified to the effect that it shall not cover the house numbers of the similarly situated persons. Furthermore, this Court, by an order, dated 04.04.2017 further modified the interim order, dated 20.06.2011 restricting to the extent covered by L.G.C.No.54 6 of 2oo2 of the special court i.e., Ac.4.17 guntas of lanc inslead of entire extent of land i.e., Acs.109.21 guntas of land in Su vey No.31g/.1 of Gaddiannaram Village. Even the orders of this coun n the above writ petitions are in favour of the persons similarly situale d as that of the petitioner herein.

9. The learned Assistant Public prosecutor has pr: iuced a copy of written instructions submitted by the Tahsildar, Sa < abad Tahsil. A perusal of the said instructions would clearly show thai the Government of lndia has not accepted the rights of Nizam over the le rd admeasuring Ac.109.21 guntas in Sy.No.318/1 of Gaddiannaram Villal e. Hence, it can be construed that the land in Sy.No.31g/1 is a privai _. land, but not Government land, as claimed by the de facto cc nplainant. The prosecution has not produced any documents to prove hat the subject land is a Government land. on the other hand, the p()r tioner has fired registered sale deed bearing document No.5441 : 2019, dated

20.06-2019 in support of her contention. when the petitic,r er has filed the said sale deed and link documents proving her owne-r hip, her rights cannot be denied in the absence of any documents berr g produced by the prosecution to prove that the land in dispute is a Gov.r rment rand.

10. Apart from that, if there is any dispute with regar,J to the subject land whether it is a Government land or of the petitir> rer and if the I I l I 7 petitioner is considered as encroacher, it is for the Government to issue notice to the petitioner and initiate Revenue proceedings against her to evict her as per raw. Though the Land Grabbing cases were fired against the similarly situated persons, the same were dismissed. Therefore, registering the cases against the petitioner contending that she has encroached upon the subject land would not be termed as an offence until and unless, the Government proves that it is the owner of the subject land. ln the instant case, no evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove that the subject land is a Government land, as such, the question of petitioner trespassing into the Government rand and raising unauthorized constructions, as aileged by the de facto complainant does not arise. The dispute invorved in the present case is purely civil in nature. However, instead of pursuing civir remedies, the de facto complainant has lodged the present compraint against the petitioner herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence, which does not meet thd strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal accusation

11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in the aforesaid judgment, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. 8

12. Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allow,: l, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner_accused in C.C.No,, 3510 of 2021 on the file of the rearned V, Additionar chief Metropoli an tVragistrate at Hyderabad. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall s :and closed Sd/. AHME D ABDULLA KHAN ASS ! TANT REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as per C.O., Dated 09.12.2025, vide l.A.NO.1 of 2025in Cd.P.No 12289 of 2023 This order substitutes the earlier order Dispatched on '1 1 .08.2025. //TRUE COPY// S ME ) ABDULLA KHAN SIS TANT REGISTRAR - ----1. 1 ;EcTlON OFFIcER To,

1. The Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Na^ paily. Hyderabad (Call for Records) 2 The Station House Officer, Malakpet Police Station, Hyc t rabad City 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the Statr of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

4. One CC to Mr. KATIKA RAVINDER REDDY, Advocate i( pUCl 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:01 10812025 09112t2025 CI ltli JTA i6 C) C) ? 1 JI|t ?02$ * I AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.12289 o12023 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is Allowed. &\