A.G.A for the State v. Fatehpur as well as entire proceedings of the said case, pending in the

FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge-sheet on dated 06.08.2024 against applicant whereupon learned court concerned has taken

2. cognizance of offence vide order dated 05.11.2024 which impugned the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the chargesheet as well as cognizance/summoning order on several other ground inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

5. In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as Chakroad, can only be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The short-cut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. At the outset, the Court notes that complete mechanism has been provided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 empowering the Gram Sabha or any other authority to take possession of any land under the provisions of the Revenue Code, where such property is entrusted or deemed to be entrusted to a Gram Sabha or other local authority and is damaged or misappropriated by anyone. The Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned Sub-Division is empowered to take action on the information received from the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned about such illegal occupation or damage or misappropriation of the Gram Sabha Land. In case, any person

3. is found in occupation of any such land in contravention of the provisions of the Revenue Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to issue notice to the person concerned to show cause as to :- (i) why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation specified in the notice be not recovered from him? (ii) why he should not be evicted from such land?

7. The person to whom such a notice is issued under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Code, can submit his reply disclosing his right or title or the nature of occupation over the land in question. In that case, the Sub- Divisional Officer has to pass an order giving reasons for not accepting the explanation, if so, offered by the person concerned. The eviction from the land can only be ordered after disposal of the explanation offered by the person concerned keeping in line with the principles of natural justice by passing a reasoned and speaking order which shall disclose the application of mind by the Officer. The amount of compensation for damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the case may be, may be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. Under sub-section (4) of Section 67, the Officer is empowered to discharge the notice if he forms an opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of the property in question. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 67 may prefer an appeal to the Collector within thirty days from the date of such order. The procedure for undertaking the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, thus, is complete in itself and does not leave any scope for any further computation of damage for wrongful occupation, damage caused or misappropriation of Gram Sabha land.

8. Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 confers supervisory power on the Board or the Commissioner to call for the record of any proceeding

4. decided by the subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding.

9. Chapter XV of the Revenue Code, 2006 talks of penalties for encroachment and provides that any person who encroaches upon or causes any obstruction to the use of any public land (including chak road), path or common land of the village, shall be liable to a fine minimum Rs. 500/- and not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- and in case of his repetitive act, the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Tehsildar may require him to execute a personal bond for a sum not exceeding of Rs. 5,000/-.

10. A careful reading of the provisions of the Revenue Code, 2006, thus, makes it clear that the proceeding for causing damage to the public property can be undertaken against any person who is in wrongful occupation of the same or causes damage or misappropriation to the said property. The nature of eviction proceeding under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 is, however, summary in nature. The rights of the parties claimed, if gives rise to a dispute requiring adjudication on the questions of fact, a suit for declaration has to be instituted against such person. The Gram Sabha may institute a suit under Section 145 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for declaration of its right or to seek any further relief. In case of institution of such a suit, a temporary injunction may be granted by the Court concerned to prevent wastage, damage or alienation of the suit property. The Revenue Code, 2006 is a Special enactment providing for the law relating to the 'land' defined under Section 4(14) of the Code.

11. 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

5. the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue Court.

12. As far as the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, the same has been enacted with the specific purpose. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that it was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion. A need was felt to strengthen the law to enable the authorities to deal with cases of damage to public property. The "public property" as defined under Section 2(b) of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by or in possession of or under the control of the Central or State Government or any local authority or any Corporation or any institution established by the Central, Provincial or State Act or its undertaking. Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 provides that anyone who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any 'public property' including the nature referred in sub- section (2) in the said section shall be punished with imprisonment and a fine depending upon the nature of the property as per sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. Section 4 provides punishment for an act of 'Mischief' causing damage to pubic property by fire or explosive substance. The P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is, thus, a Special Act enacted to punish for the offence committed under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act by doing any act of vandalism including the destruction or damage during any riots or public demonstration in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like. The "Mischief" has been defined under Section 2(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 having the same meaning as in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 6 is the saving clause which says that the Act' 1984 covers the offence committed under it and the provisions of it are in addition to any other law which provides for any proceeding (whether by way of investigation or

6. otherwise) which may be instituted or taken against the offender, apart from this Act. Special provisions with regard to disposal of a prayer for bail made by a person accused of commission of offence under the Act' 1984 has been provided under Section 5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

13. The provisions oblige a person found guilty of commission of offence to pay the damage or loss caused to the public property. This Act, thus, covers the specific area of damage or loss or destruction of public property and recovery of such damages from the person(s) who is/are found guilty of such damage during the course of any public demonstration in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like.

14. In Re. Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [2009 (5) SCC 212], taking a serious note of various instances where there was a large scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, suo motu proceedings had been initiated by the Apex Court and two committees were appointed to give suggestions on strengthening of the legal provisions of P.D.P.P. Act to effectively deal with such instances. The recommendations of two committees were considered and it was observed that the suggestions were extremely important and they constitute sufficient guidelines which need to be adopted. It was left open to the appropriate authorities to take effective steps for their implementation.

15. In compliance thereof, the State of U.P. notified the "Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Rules, 2020", framed with a view to provide for recovery of damages to public and private property during hartal, bundh, riots, public commotion, protests etc. in respect of the property and imposition of fine. The said 'Rules' provide for constitution of the claims tribunal to investigate the damages caused and to award compensation related thereto.

16. The first information report dated 01.08.2024 reporting an offence committed under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The concerned Magistrate has committed a patent error of law in taking cognizance of the alleged offence by passing a cryptic order without application of his independent mind. The charge sheet and the cognizance order summoning the applicants herein for alleged commission of offence under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 are, thus, liable to be quashed.

17. In the instant case, the allegation in the F.I.R. is general and vague, it is averred in the FIR that applicant had encroached and damaged the public property belonging to Gram Sabha. The charge sheet does not disclose appreciation of any particular material on record against the applicant. The order of taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate is a non-speaking order. In this case, the criminal action proposed against the applicant, thus, is a result of non-application of judicial mind.

18. In any case, determination on the disputed questions of facts, in an appropriate proceeding before the Revenue Court is necessary. Neither the damage can be imposed for alleged 'Mischief' by taking criminal action under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 can be said to have been prima facie made out against the applicant herein. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section ¾ of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2024 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed.

19. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, charge-sheet dated 06.08.2024 along with cognizance/summoning

8. order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Fatehpur in Case No.24177 of 2024 (State Vs. Parsan), arising out of Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section ¾ of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Gazipur, District Fatehpur as well as entire proceedings of the said case, are hereby quashed.

20. The instant application stands allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

FIR, the concerned Investigating Officer started inquiry and after conclusion of the same, preferred charge-sheet on dated 06.08.2024 against applicant whereupon learned court concerned has taken

2. cognizance of offence vide order dated 05.11.2024 which impugned the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for applicant has challenged the chargesheet as well as cognizance/summoning order on several other ground inter-alia precisely on the ground that lodging of the first information report taking aid of provisions of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of process of the law, inasmuch as, the said provisions cannot be invoked to lodge a criminal case on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

5. In any case, the question as to whether applicant had illegally encroached upon the land vested in Gram Sabha, recorded as Chakroad, can only be adjudicated by the Revenue Authorities. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The short-cut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. At the outset, the Court notes that complete mechanism has been provided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 empowering the Gram Sabha or any other authority to take possession of any land under the provisions of the Revenue Code, where such property is entrusted or deemed to be entrusted to a Gram Sabha or other local authority and is damaged or misappropriated by anyone. The Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned Sub-Division is empowered to take action on the information received from the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal concerned about such illegal occupation or damage or misappropriation of the Gram Sabha Land. In case, any person

3. is found in occupation of any such land in contravention of the provisions of the Revenue Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer has to issue notice to the person concerned to show cause as to :- (i) why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation specified in the notice be not recovered from him? (ii) why he should not be evicted from such land?

7. The person to whom such a notice is issued under sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Code, can submit his reply disclosing his right or title or the nature of occupation over the land in question. In that case, the Sub- Divisional Officer has to pass an order giving reasons for not accepting the explanation, if so, offered by the person concerned. The eviction from the land can only be ordered after disposal of the explanation offered by the person concerned keeping in line with the principles of natural justice by passing a reasoned and speaking order which shall disclose the application of mind by the Officer. The amount of compensation for damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the case may be, may be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. Under sub-section (4) of Section 67, the Officer is empowered to discharge the notice if he forms an opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of the property in question. Any person aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 67 may prefer an appeal to the Collector within thirty days from the date of such order. The procedure for undertaking the proceedings under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, thus, is complete in itself and does not leave any scope for any further computation of damage for wrongful occupation, damage caused or misappropriation of Gram Sabha land.

8. Section 210 of the Revenue Code, 2006 confers supervisory power on the Board or the Commissioner to call for the record of any proceeding

4. decided by the subordinate revenue court in which no appeal lies for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed in such suit or proceeding.

9. Chapter XV of the Revenue Code, 2006 talks of penalties for encroachment and provides that any person who encroaches upon or causes any obstruction to the use of any public land (including chak road), path or common land of the village, shall be liable to a fine minimum Rs. 500/- and not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- and in case of his repetitive act, the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Tehsildar may require him to execute a personal bond for a sum not exceeding of Rs. 5,000/-.

10. A careful reading of the provisions of the Revenue Code, 2006, thus, makes it clear that the proceeding for causing damage to the public property can be undertaken against any person who is in wrongful occupation of the same or causes damage or misappropriation to the said property. The nature of eviction proceeding under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 is, however, summary in nature. The rights of the parties claimed, if gives rise to a dispute requiring adjudication on the questions of fact, a suit for declaration has to be instituted against such person. The Gram Sabha may institute a suit under Section 145 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 for declaration of its right or to seek any further relief. In case of institution of such a suit, a temporary injunction may be granted by the Court concerned to prevent wastage, damage or alienation of the suit property. The Revenue Code, 2006 is a Special enactment providing for the law relating to the 'land' defined under Section 4(14) of the Code.

11. 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

5. the parties over the land in dispute as the said determination can be done only by the revenue Court.

12. As far as the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is concerned, the same has been enacted with the specific purpose. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that it was enacted with a view to curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion. A need was felt to strengthen the law to enable the authorities to deal with cases of damage to public property. The "public property" as defined under Section 2(b) of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by or in possession of or under the control of the Central or State Government or any local authority or any Corporation or any institution established by the Central, Provincial or State Act or its undertaking. Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 provides that anyone who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any 'public property' including the nature referred in sub- section (2) in the said section shall be punished with imprisonment and a fine depending upon the nature of the property as per sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984. Section 4 provides punishment for an act of 'Mischief' causing damage to pubic property by fire or explosive substance. The P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is, thus, a Special Act enacted to punish for the offence committed under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act by doing any act of vandalism including the destruction or damage during any riots or public demonstration in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like. The "Mischief" has been defined under Section 2(a) of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 having the same meaning as in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). Section 6 is the saving clause which says that the Act' 1984 covers the offence committed under it and the provisions of it are in addition to any other law which provides for any proceeding (whether by way of investigation or

6. otherwise) which may be instituted or taken against the offender, apart from this Act. Special provisions with regard to disposal of a prayer for bail made by a person accused of commission of offence under the Act' 1984 has been provided under Section 5 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

13. The provisions oblige a person found guilty of commission of offence to pay the damage or loss caused to the public property. This Act, thus, covers the specific area of damage or loss or destruction of public property and recovery of such damages from the person(s) who is/are found guilty of such damage during the course of any public demonstration in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like.

14. In Re. Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [2009 (5) SCC 212], taking a serious note of various instances where there was a large scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, suo motu proceedings had been initiated by the Apex Court and two committees were appointed to give suggestions on strengthening of the legal provisions of P.D.P.P. Act to effectively deal with such instances. The recommendations of two committees were considered and it was observed that the suggestions were extremely important and they constitute sufficient guidelines which need to be adopted. It was left open to the appropriate authorities to take effective steps for their implementation.

15. In compliance thereof, the State of U.P. notified the "Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Rules, 2020", framed with a view to provide for recovery of damages to public and private property during hartal, bundh, riots, public commotion, protests etc. in respect of the property and imposition of fine. The said 'Rules' provide for constitution of the claims tribunal to investigate the damages caused and to award compensation related thereto.

16. The first information report dated 01.08.2024 reporting an offence committed under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The concerned Magistrate has committed a patent error of law in taking cognizance of the alleged offence by passing a cryptic order without application of his independent mind. The charge sheet and the cognizance order summoning the applicants herein for alleged commission of offence under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 are, thus, liable to be quashed.

17. In the instant case, the allegation in the F.I.R. is general and vague, it is averred in the FIR that applicant had encroached and damaged the public property belonging to Gram Sabha. The charge sheet does not disclose appreciation of any particular material on record against the applicant. The order of taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate is a non-speaking order. In this case, the criminal action proposed against the applicant, thus, is a result of non-application of judicial mind.

18. In any case, determination on the disputed questions of facts, in an appropriate proceeding before the Revenue Court is necessary. Neither the damage can be imposed for alleged 'Mischief' by taking criminal action under Section 3/4 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 can be said to have been prima facie made out against the applicant herein. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section ¾ of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, cannot but be said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance/summoning order dated 05.11.2024 has been passed in complete ignorance of law. The continuation of criminal proceedings, in the considered opinion of the Court, being an abuse of process of the Court, ends of the justice requires that the said proceedings be quashed.

19. Invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the High Court, charge-sheet dated 06.08.2024 along with cognizance/summoning

8. order dated 05.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Fatehpur in Case No.24177 of 2024 (State Vs. Parsan), arising out of Case Crime No.140 of 2024, under Section ¾ of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Gazipur, District Fatehpur as well as entire proceedings of the said case, are hereby quashed.

20. The instant application stands allowed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Vivek Kr. (Saurabh Srivastava, J.) VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad