- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Allahabad High Court
- /
- Proceedings Under Prevention Of...
Proceedings Under Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act Not Maintainable Against Illegal Encroachment On Gram Sabha Land: Allahabad HC
Upasna Agrawal
9 May 2025 1:35 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 not maintainable against illegal encroachment on Gram Sabha land.While quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P....
The Allahabad High Court has reiterated that proceedings under Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 not maintainable against illegal encroachment on Gram Sabha land.
While quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. and another where it was held that “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.”
Lekhpal lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 alleging that upon survey he had found that the Gram Sabha land, which is a public property, had been encroached upon by nearby farmers. It was alleged that there was damage to public property. Subsequently, chargesheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the High Court.
Counsel for applicant urged non-application of mind by the Magistrate while issuing the summoning order. It was argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction.
Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and Another, the Court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to “curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion.”
It was held that continuation of process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and quashed the same.
Case Title: Brahmdutt Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Another
Counsel for Applicant: Man Mohan Mishra