Basant Lal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And

counsel for the applicant is that the 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 encroachment of Gram Sabha land which is recorded as Naveen Parti on Gata No.1065. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

4. Leaned counsel for the applicants submits that in any case, the question as to whether the land in dispute had been illegally encroached upon by the applicant over the land vested in Gram Sabha, allegedly recorded as Naveen Parti, can only be adjudicated by the revenue Court. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The shortcut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

5. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer made in 2 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 this petition but could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of of the applicant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

7. At the threshold, it maybe noted 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 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?

8. 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.

9. Chapter XV of the Revenue Code, 2006 talks of penalties 3 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 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 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 4 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 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 otherwise) which may be instituted or taken against the offender, apart from this Act. 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.

13. The area which is covered by the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is, thus, confined to the destruction or damage to the 'public property' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act during the course of riots or public demonstrations (commotion). The said provisions, in the considered opinion of the Court, cannot be invoked for lodging the criminal complaint or the first information report on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land by illegal encroachment against a person permanently residing in the village or a tenure holder of any land in the village in question.

14. The first information report dated 27.3.2017 reporting an offence committed under Section 2/3 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 dated

17.4.2017 and the cognizance order dated 18.9.2023 summoning the applicant herein for alleged commission of offence under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 are, thus, liable to be quashed.

15. In any case, determination on the disputed questions of facts, in an appropriate proceeding before the Revenue Court is necessary. The damage can not be imposed for alleged 'Mischief' by taking criminal action under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, therefore prima facie no case is made 5 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 out against the applicant. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. is said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance order dated 18.9.2023 in Criminal Case No.4199 of 2023 (State vs. Basant Lal) 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.

16. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.4199 of 2023 (supra) including charge sheet dated 17.4.20217 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated

18.9.203 are hereby quashed. December 3, 2025 Shukla/Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

counsel for the applicant is that the 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 encroachment of Gram Sabha land which is recorded as Naveen Parti on Gata No.1065. The Magistrate has acted illegally and without application of judicial mind in taking cognizance on the charge sheet submitted under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984.

4. Leaned counsel for the applicants submits that in any case, the question as to whether the land in dispute had been illegally encroached upon by the applicant over the land vested in Gram Sabha, allegedly recorded as Naveen Parti, can only be adjudicated by the revenue Court. The proper proceeding for eviction of the unauthorized occupant can be undertaken under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006. The shortcut procedure adopted by the Lekhpal of the village concerned is nothing but with a view to harass the applicant.

5. On the contrary, learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer made in 2 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 this petition but could not controvert the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of of the applicant.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

7. At the threshold, it maybe noted 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 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?

8. 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.

9. Chapter XV of the Revenue Code, 2006 talks of penalties 3 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 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 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 4 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 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 otherwise) which may be instituted or taken against the offender, apart from this Act. 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.

13. The area which is covered by the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 is, thus, confined to the destruction or damage to the 'public property' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act during the course of riots or public demonstrations (commotion). The said provisions, in the considered opinion of the Court, cannot be invoked for lodging the criminal complaint or the first information report on the allegations of damage or loss caused to the Gram Sabha land by illegal encroachment against a person permanently residing in the village or a tenure holder of any land in the village in question.

14. The first information report dated 27.3.2017 reporting an offence committed under Section 2/3 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 dated

17.4.2017 and the cognizance order dated 18.9.2023 summoning the applicant herein for alleged commission of offence under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984 are, thus, liable to be quashed.

15. In any case, determination on the disputed questions of facts, in an appropriate proceeding before the Revenue Court is necessary. The damage can not be imposed for alleged 'Mischief' by taking criminal action under Section 2/3 of the P.D.P.P. Act, 1984, therefore prima facie no case is made 5 A482 No. 10250 of 2025 out against the applicant. The criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. is said to be an abuse of the process of law or the Court. The cognizance order dated 18.9.2023 in Criminal Case No.4199 of 2023 (State vs. Basant Lal) 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.

16. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The entire criminal proceedings of Criminal Case No.4199 of 2023 (supra) including charge sheet dated 17.4.20217 as well as cognizance/summoning order dated

18.9.203 are hereby quashed. December 3, 2025 Shukla/Anand/- (Rajeev Bharti,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench