Dismissed

Ravi Suri v. M.v.v.PrasadaRao

Telangana HC15 Feb 2023CRLP/8363/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging prosecution for trespass and mischief, the High Court held that the petitioner failed to prove lawful ownership after the government had declared the land escheat, published notifications, and taken possession under the statutory procedure. The criminal proceedings were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No relief; criminal proceedings via CC No.7315 of 2021 dismissed.

Ravi Suri Vs M.v.v.PrasadaRao — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[32s1 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO:8363 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ravi Suri, S/o. late C. Roy, Aged about 49 years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H.No. B-2417, Road No.4, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

M.V.V.Prasada Rao, S/o. Janaiah, Aged about 50 years, Tahsildar, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

¶12

...DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P .C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7315 of 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further^proceedings including the appearance of^the petitioner in C.C.No.731 5 of 2021 on the file of the Vll Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad,^pending disposal^{of the} criminal petition.

¶18

rt, ,tttta..l !.l.,, l; Y7

¶19

This Petition^{( orning on for hearing,upon perusingtl- r: [t4emorandum of} Grounds^{of Criminal Petition and upon hearingthe argumert't:of Sri C. Sharan} Reddy,^{Advocatefor the Petitionerand the Public Prosecuttt' (T(;) on behalfof} the Respondent^{No.I and norre appeared for the Respondentrlo.1.}

¶20

The Court^{made the lollowing: ORDER}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI .'USTICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8363 of 2O2L

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Criminal Petition is hled to quash the^proceedings against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.7315 of 2O2l on the^file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by the prosecution for the offences under Sections 447, 427 of IPC ald Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 on the basis of the complaint of the Tahsildar/2nd respondent.

¶26

Briefly, the case of the l"t respondent is that the concerned Revenue Inspector found that the land in question declared as Government land under A.P.Escheats & Bona Vacantia Act falls in TS Nos.S & 6 Block: L, Ward Ng. 167 correlated to Sy.No. 12 of Teegalaguda Village was trespassed by this petitioner and he had removed the government sign board and wrote on walls that " Irespassers will be prosecuted. This land belongs to Raui Suri P.No.15 & 16 H.No.16-11-16/P/96, Teegalaguda, Saleem Nagar, Malakpet, Hgderabad." The staff of the revenue offrce painted the

¶27

v"'alls \,it h bl:-ck paint and erected a govcrrrmen r,igrL board again on O5.12.2O2 ), but the said sign board u,as aga rr rernoved by the accused. Dur ng the course of investigation, the :,clit:e found that this petitioner ha,1 trespassed tu.ice into thc govr).;tment land and removed the gcvernment sign board painted on th<: walls, for u,hich reason, he har, cornmitted the alleged offences.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitlor(.r. u ould submit that the land.,r.as allotted to one Lalana Kunrari lrl.the Hyderabad Urban Develo[ mellt C]ooperative Society bv virtue ,t. a sa,le deed in the year 1960 and she was in peaceful conlinuo.t:; possession by paying talies. There.after, Lalana Kumari hac[ e.Kecuted an agreement of sale witl-r possession on 10.03.201g irr firvour of the petitioner's fatl rer zLnd delivered possession to him I.lou,ever, before sale deed coulC be rr:gistered, the petitioner,s fz t her expired on 07.O4.2OO9 ar d said Lalana Kumari expired orr 12.Og.2OlO. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner t.he transaction between Lalanz Kumar:i and the petitioner,s father l .as not known to either of thei^. legal h eirs.

¶29

Learned c cunsel for the petitioner further sr; l rmits that the petitioner lbunc sorne ,locuments in his housr_,, u,hi:h i_rclude Will

¶30

-r

¶31

dated 03.02.2009 in which father of Petitioner mentioned regarding the transaction with Lalana Kumari. Having come to know about the transaction, Petitioner issued public notice on 10. 11.2O2O about the agreement of sa-le. When the petitioner found that the government has put up a board upon his property, he requested the authorities to furnish the documents on the basis of which the government was claiming title over the said land. Since there was no response, the petitioner Iiled W.P.No.21680 of 2O2O on 24.11.2020 for a direction against the revenue department to remove the board and not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession of the property. For the reason of ftling the said Writ Petition on 24.11.2020, the^present false complaint was filed on 07.12.2O2O by the Tahsildar. On making enquiries, the^petitioner came to know that the^government had taken over the custody of the land and same was^published in the.gazette dated 01.08.2018. Again W.P.No. 13669 of,2O2l was filed challenging the said^gazette notification. Petitioner further filed OS No.363 of 2O2l before the XVU Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for directing the legal heirs of Lalana Kumari to get the sale deed registered in his favour. Both the civil suit and also the writ

¶32

¶33

petihons are per.ding adjudication. For the s rrid reason, the proceedings against the petitioner have to the quas; -ed

¶34

In supprrt of his ar6luments, learrrecl :<:unsel for the petitioner re1iel on the judgment of this Court in^{'Jrr.P.No.22822} of 2010 dated I, .12.2010 in the case of Deepthi ,l.r'enues Private Limited v. Tlre State of Anhra Pradesh and ir:-gued that the Governme nt hi Ls to resort to procedure prescr ibed r-tnder Section 1 1 of the Andhra Pra<lesh Escheats and Bona V rcantier A<:t. 1974 and the Petitioner'r right c:annot be denied over tl-re ptl)t)ert,. The land belongs to the Petitioner as such the question of trt:spass does not arise. Accordin gly r-he proceedings have to be quas.-rr:d.

¶35

Procedur: is prescribed under Telangana Es:lea_s and Bona Vacantia Act, .974 (fcrr short 'the Act') for the Go.r:rnreent to take possession of zn 'escheat', which means any prop,)rlr <>f the owner who dies intes -ate without leaving a legal heir or '3otra Vacantia' which means rLnd includes any property, situatec in the State, of which there is no rigtrtful owner, but does not inr:hrde an escheat or any movabk property found in a public place. Ur r:ler Section 9 of the Act when i' is lbund that particular propert]' i.. ie the nature of an escheat or z bona vacantia or not in possession ,) '' art]. person or

¶36

)

¶37

if any person in possession surrenders st.ch possession, the concerned officer would take the property into custody and arrange for its care. The concerned authority having followed the procedure under the said Act published notification on 01.08.2018 stating that the land was vacant since 60 years ald there was no rightful owner. Notice was a-lso published in prominent newspapers in the State.

¶38

Under Section i 1(1) of the Act after the property is ta-ken into custody by the concerned officer, a notice shall be published in the prescribed manner calling upon any person who may have interest in such property to make their claim within three months from the date of publication of such notice. In the event of any person claiming such property within the period of said three months, the concerned officer has to refer such claim to the civil court and the concerned civil court shall decide as if it were a suit after giving notice to the claimant(s) in accordance with Clause (a) of Subsection 3 of Section 1 1 of the Act

¶39

In the present case, the government has notfied the land as 'Escheat' and accordingly took possession of the land. Nearly 2 Yz years later, the petitioner is claiming that there were transactions

¶40

¶41

with respect to t.hr-' seLid property^r,r'a1' back in the r eat- 1960 u hen propertlr \ras )Ltrchasied by one Lalana Kumari irrd thereafter br way of an agre lment of sale in favour of his father i r th: year 2OO9

¶42

1O. The corccrned revenue authorities haviI1, fcllovved the procedurc unrter the Act, took possession of tlrt said property. Thereafter, tht concerned authorities after taking tle Jrroperty into possession ha^,e publ:ished the gazette and also n o ticc as required under the said Ac1. If any person has a claim to s'-tr'h l)roperty, the said claim car be^preferred u,ithin a period of thrr:e rronths from the da te of pt biicatic n of the notice ard if no c [,t im is preferred within a perio( of three months, the propert) r.i,'ou[,] be declared as 'bona vacantia or 'Escheat'. Any person to claim 'lrr;na vacantia' or 'Escheat' prop( rty as his, the time prescribed is thrr,'e rnonths from the date of^pt blicatic,n. However, there mav be e ;:tension to the said time peri< d depending on the facts, but the r:rrtire procedure prescribed unr ler the Act was followed and the^(i,rvernment has taken possessjon of the^property. Unless a compltlnt Civil Court identifies that th is pet-itioner as the lawful o..r,ner o n the basis his claims, the⁽ iovernnlent is the rightful ou'n€r . In the said circumstances rvhen the land in question ',l,as in p:ssession of the

¶43

¶44

¶45

Government, the petitioner had indulged in removing the sign board and also painting on the walls, which pima facie establish the olfence of mischief and criminal trespass. For the said reasons, petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46