Telangana High Court
Sude Tulsi Reddy And 2 Others vs The State Of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp And ... on 16 August, 2022
Author: D. Nagarjun
Bench: D. Nagarjun
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D. NAGARJUN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8257 of 2016
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the petitioners/A1 to A3 in C.C.No.1493 of 2015 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District against whom cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 430 and 431 IPC.
2. The facts in brief as per the charge sheet are as under:
3. On 28.09.2015 at 11.00 a.m., the petitioners mischievously damaged and removed the sand bags erected by the authorities for stoppage of water to FTL (Floor Tank Level) at the exist point of Pallecheruvu for their illegal means and wrongfully diverted the water to downstream which resulted flow of water into the downstream areas including Ali Nagar, on account of which, roads were damaged at the Regal Function Hall and obstructed the free flow of traffic and caused inconvenience to the residents of Ali Nagar.
4. On a complaint given by the Executive Engineer, IB Division, Hyderabad, on 29.09.2015, stating that unidentified persons have tampered the temporary arrangements made for 2 storage of water in Pallecheruvu, due to which the downstream areas have been inundated. It is also stated in the complaint that two local pattadars have tampered the sand bags, which were placed to keep the water up to full tank level. Police have registered the said complaint as an FIR in Crime No.644 of 2015 for the offence under Sections 430 and 431 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, police have recorded the statement of de-facto complainant, visited the scene of offence, scene of offence panchanama was drawn in the presence of mediators, rough sketch was also drawn and statements of other witnesses were also recorded and finally charge sheet is filed alleging that the petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Sections 430 and 431 IPC. The trial Court has taken cognizance of the same for the offence under Sections 430 and 431 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed to quash C.C.No.1493 of 2015.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in Sy.Nos.95, 120 and 136 of Mylardevpally village and Sy.No.103/17, 143, 144, 146 to 150 of Bandlaguda village admeasuring Ac.30.00 is a patta land and belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners were given pattadar passbooks and all documents and in the revenue records their names are 3 recorded in respect of the said land as pattadars. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the irrigation department or revenue department or municipality cannot interfere, store any water or keep any sand bags in the said land. It is also submitted that earlier on two occasions the petitioners have approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed writ petitions, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the lands belong to patta lands of pattedars and Government is no way concerned with the said land. It is further submitted that even otherwise as per the complaint, there is no record that the petitioners have committed the offence and therefore, prayed the Court to quash C.C.No.1493 of 2015.
6. Sri Ganesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the Government has put up sand bags during rainy season to see that the water is not inundated to the low lying areas and the petitioners have removed them, thereby the low lying areas were inundated and caused damage to the roads and public flow was obstructed and therefore, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4
8. Now, the point for determination is whether C.C.No.1493 of 2015 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy can be quashed?
9. A perusal of the complaint filed by the de-facto complainant and also the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., of the witnesses, who are officials of the revenue department, would go to show that there is no material as to whether the land, where the sand bags were allegedly stored to stop the water from flowing, is a Government land or a patta land belonging to the petitioners.
10. The contents of the complaint would go to show that temporary arrangements were made for storage of water in Pallecheruvu and therefore, the complaint would give an impression that when the water is stored by placing the sand bags in the Pallecheruvu belonging to the Government some persons have removed the sand bags, thereby water has been flown into low lying areas. Police did not make an enquiry or collect any documents from the officials to know whether the land where water was stored belonging to the Government or private persons. Revenue Inspector, VRO, VLA, who were examined as LWs.2 to 4, have also not stated as to whether the land where water was stored is a private or a patta land. 5
11. In the contrary, the petitioners have been asserting that the lands in Sy.Nos.95, 120 and 136 of Mylardevpally village and Sy.Nos.103/17, 143, 144 and 146 to 150 of Bandlaguda village total admeasuring Ac.30.00 belonging to the petitioners and they are the pattadaras and the Government is no way concerned. The de-facto complainant or any officials of the revenue or irrigation departments did not dispute this aspect. The petitioners have filed W.P.Nos.8516 and 18141 of 2006 before this Court alleging that they are the owners of land in Sy.Nos.103/17, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149 and 150 of Bandlaguda village and Sy.Nos.95 and 120 of Maylardevpally village and sought for a direction against the fisheries department not to interfere with their possession and enjoyment. This Court has passed common order dated 23.08.2007 holding that the petitioners are the owners of the said land and thereby the respondent/Government fisheries department cannot grant any lease in respect of the said land to fishermen cooperative society. This Court also observed that the Commissioner has addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendranagar dated 30.08.2003 stating that on verification of revenue records it is found that the entire tank bed area of Pallecheruvu is a patta land belonging to pattadars. Out of which 3/4th area fell 6 under Bandlaguda Mandal and 1/4th area fell under Rajendranagar Mandal and allowed the writ petitions, as the land, where Government wanted to lease out for fisherman cooperative society, is a patta land and directed the Government not to interfere and not to lease the fishing rights.
12. Similarly, the petitioners have also filed one more writ petition i.e., W.P.No.34108 of 2015, wherein while considering WPMP.No.43907 of 2015, this Court has ordered that since the petitioners are having pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of land in Sy.Nos.95, 120 and 136 of Mylardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and directed the respondents therein not to interfere with the said lands. Therefore, the above writ petitions and also the assertion of the petitioners would go to show that the land in dispute where the officials stated to have stored the sand bags is a patta land belonging to the petitioners. There is no other material before the Court except the charge sheet to show that the land belongs to the Government. Therefore, when there is no material to that extent, the Government officials can not put sand bags without permission of the petitioners.
13. If really the Government wanted to convert the said land as a tank for either for fishing or storage of water or irrigation or 7 any other purpose, the Government is expected to acquire the land and convert it into whatever manner it likes for the convenience of the public, but no such efforts were made. Government can also, if there is a provision in any of the Acts, declare the said land temporarily into a tank or pond. But, the Government has not taken any such steps to see that it can exercise the authority over the said patt land belonging to the petitioners. Therefore, once Government cannot exercise any authority over the said land, it cannot obviously say that Pallecheruvu is a tank. In fact, according to the assertion made by the petitioners and as per the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions, these lands are patta lands.
14. Even otherwise, the complaint would go to show that two local pattadars have tampered the sand bags. In 161 Cr.P.C., statements of the de-facto complainant and also other official witnesses, the names of the petitioners have been mentioned. None of them are the eye witnesses to the incident. There is no record as to on what basis the official witnesses have stated the names of the petitioners.
15. Sections 430 IPC reads as under:
"430. Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water.--Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or 8 for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."
In order to prove the offence under Section 430 IPC, the prosecution is expected to prove that the petitioners have done mischievous thing of removing the sand bags by which supply of water to the agricultural purpose, for food, for drink and for feeding the animals was affected. It is not the case of the prosecution that the water, which is allegedly stored, is for the purpose of agriculture, or for the purpose of food or for drinking of human being or for the animals or any other purpose, which is mentioned in Section 430 IPC. Therefore, the purpose for which the water is stored is the key in Section 430 IPC. In the case on hand, there is no allegation that the water is stored for the purpose of agriculture, food, drinking of human beings, animals etc., when such is the case, the contention that the petitioners committed the offence under Section 430 IPC by removing the sand bags cannot be appreciated.
16. Section 431 IPC reads as under:
"431. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel.--Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both."9
In order to fastened the liability under this section, the prosecution has to prove that by removing the sand bags, the petitioners have committed mischief and on account of such mischief water from the tank was let out which has damaged the road, bridge, navigable channel etc.
17. It is the contention of the prosecution that on account of leaving the water by the petitioners, the low lying areas were inundated, roads were damaged causing inconvenience to the residents of Ali Nagar. The prosecution has not filed any document to show that on account of leaving out the water, the roads were damaged or damage was caused. No panchanama was conducted to show that obstruction was caused to the roads and low lying areas were inundated on account of releasing the water. Though a panchanama was conducted in the presence of LWs.6 and 7, that panchanama is in respect of a place where the petitioners were allegedly removed the sand bags.
18. In order to prove the offence under Section 431 IPC, the prosecution is expected to prove that the road was obstructed and the low lying areas were inundated for which in both the places panchanama should have been conducted and the statements of witnesses should have been recorded to show that 10 on account of water over flowing, they could not use the road and that their residential areas were inundated and caused much inconvenience.
19. The witnesses cited are not eye witnesses either for removal of sand bags or to the alleged inundation of water in the low lying areas, but they are only officials, who have simply informed about the incident.
20. Therefore, considering from any angle, there is no material to show that the petitioners have committed the offence under Sections 430 and 431 IPC. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted and the same are liable to quashed.
21. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.1493 of 2015 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. D. NAGARJUN, J Date: 16.08.2022.
ES