Smt. Dashratha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024CRLR/926/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court stays the impugned order of rejection of discharge application in a case under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, finding that the FIR did not establish the land was public property despite a registered sale deed from patta holders.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the order dated 18.06.2024 rejecting discharge application and proceedings Case No. 14453 of 2019 until further order.

Smt. Dashratha Devi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 926 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt. Dashratha Devi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another

¶3

Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1.

¶6

Issue notice to respondent no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶7

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionists is that the revisionists had purchased a piece of abadi land from erstwhile owners through a registered sale deed on 24.04.2015. The said land was an abadi patta which had been allotted to certain reserved category persons for raising construction of their house. An FIR dated 06.11.2019 was lodged by the respondent no. 2 under provisions of Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1984). A copy of the said FIR is annexure 2 to the revision.

¶8

It is contended that perusal of the said FIR would indicate that the revisionists have alleged to have purchased the said piece of land from reserved category persons who is having the patta but there is no disclosure as to how the purchase of the said land or for that matter the land would fall within the ambit of being a public property more particularly when in the FIR itself it has been indicated that the land had been purchased from persons who are having residential patta.

¶9

Be that as it may the revisionists approached this Court by filing Case U/S 482 / 378 / 407 No. 2891 of 2020 in re: Smt Dashratha Devi and another vs State of U.P. and another. This

¶10

Court vide order dated 01.12.2020, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the revision, considering the aforesaid facts including statutory provisions under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which has deliberately not been invoked by the revisional authority by the revisionists, stayed the proceedings.

¶11

Subsequent thereto the said petition had been disposed of vide judgement and order dated 22.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure 7 to the petition, whereby it was left open for the revisionists to appear through counsel before learned trial court and file an application claiming discharge.

¶12

It has been contended that the revisionists filed an application for discharge which has been rejected by learned court vide order dated 18.06.2024 and hence the revision.

¶13

The argument as raised by learned counsel for the revisionists are (a) perusal of said FIR would indicate that no offence under the Act, 1984 had been committed more particularly when FIR does not indicate as to how the land in dispute would fall within the ambit of being a public property as defined under the provisions of the Act, 1984, (b) the revisionists are bonafide purchasers of the land by means of a registered sale deed and (c) it could have been understood if the sellers lodged the FIR against the revisionists.

¶14

It is thus contended that all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by learned trial court while rejecting the discharge application of the revisionist by means of order impugned and hence the instant revision.

¶15

Undisputedely the FIR has been lodged by the Lekhpal but a perusal of the said FIR would indicate that there are no details as to how the provisions of Act, 1984 was invoked more

¶16

particularly when from the FIR itself it emerges that patta holders have sold off the lands to the revisionist who has purchased the said land through a registered sale deed.

¶17

Incidentally this aspect of matter appears to have escaped the notice of learned trial court while rejecting the discharge application.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case for interference is made out.

¶19

As such, until further order, the operation of order dated 18.06.2024 in re: State vs Dashratha Devi and another shall remain stayed alongwith proceedings of Case No. 14453 of 2019 in re: State vs Dashratha Devi.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file a counter affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit may be filed within next two weeks.

¶21

List thereafter.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶23

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Dashratha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dashratha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sukhdev Mishra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bindra Prasad Dubey @ Bindra Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Kapil Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ramesh Kashyap vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Inzmamul Haq and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another