Telangana High Court
Tarun Kumar Goyal, 5 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 6 June, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
CRL.P.No.10289 OF 2013
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash proceedings against petitioners/A-2 to A-7 in F.I.R.No.244 of 2012 on the file of RGI Airport Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offences 447, 427 IPC and Sections 3,4 and 5 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982.
2. The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District lodged a complaint with Station House Officer, RGI Airport, Shamshabad on 20.06.2012 alleging that on the same day at 9.30 am he was present at Mamidikunta situated in survey No.247 of Gaganpahad Village, Rajendranagar Mandal along with Village Revenue Officer to cause local enquiry on illegal grabbing of Maidikunta shikam land and at that time one JCB bearing No.AP 28-AR-8766 was running for levelling the ground on shikam of Mamidikunta causing damage to the tank bed area about Ac.1.00 guntas. On enquiry the JCB driver revealed that said work was entrusted to him by one Omprakash and he intends to develop and construct in the said tank bed area and said land falls in survey 2 ASR,J Crlp_10289_2013 Nos.241, 242, 243 and 244 and does not fall in survey No.247 of Mamidikunta. But the tank bed area in which damage caused to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas falls under survey No.247 of Mamidikunta which was surveyed by Mandal Surveyor. Hence, sought for action was against the encroachers i.e. petitioners and other accused for illegal encroachment of the tank bed area for construction of industries in sy.No.247. On the basis of complaint, aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioners and other accused.
3. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. Perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land to an extent of Ac.11-13 guntas in survey No.247 Gaganpahad Village, Rajendranagar Mandal was alleged to have been purchased by the petitioners under registered sale deeds. The petitioners filed WP.No.13894 of 2011 challenging notice dated 28.04.2011 pursuant to the order in complaint No.859/2010/B1 by A.P.Lokayukta and this Court granted stay orders in WP.No.16912 and 16913 of 2012. It is also submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the said land covered in survey No.247 and therefore, trespassing the same does not arise.
3 ASR,J Crlp_10289_2013
5. As per the docket proceedings, on 02.03.2022 it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 passed away. However, the death certificates are not filed.
6. A perusal of the F.I.R. and the complaint reveals that the names of petitioners have shown as encroachers who allegedly encroached the tank bund area for construction of industries in survey No.247 of Mamidikunta, whereas, the contention of petitioners is that they are the owners of Ac.11-13 guntas in survey No.247 of Gaganpahad village which was patta land and purchased by them under registered sale deeds. A news item published in Eenadu newspaper on 14.01.1999, an article published under the caption of 'Rowdy Sheeterla Paharalo Mayamouthunna Mamidikunta' whichw as registered as WP.No.7480 of 1999, wherein the District Collector filed counter affidavit. A perusal of the counter affidavit reveals that the then Collector categorically mentioned as per Khasra Pahani, survey No.247 (Ac.19-15 gts) patta land is shown as Mamidi Kunta Shikam. The subsequent entries in the revenue records also show that there is no Government land of Shikam in survey No.247. It is also further mentioned that an extent of Ac.19-15 guntas which is shikam of the kunta is patta standing in the name of Mohd.Osman.
4 ASR,J Crlp_10289_2013
7. The allegations of the complaint categorically show that the petitioners alleged to have illegally encroached in the tank bund area for construction of industries in survey No.247, whereas the then District Collector filed counter affidavit in WP.No.7480 of 1999 stating that the entire land covered in survey No.247 is patta land and the petitioners are the owners of an extent of Ac.11-13 guntas. When the petitioners are the owners of land covered in survey No.247, the question of trespassing by them into said survey does not arise.Apart from this, though the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioners under Sections 3,4 and 5 of A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, there are no prima facie material ingredients to attract the said offences. The said provision does not apply to the petitioners as they are the owners of the land in survey No.247 and there is no specific allegation to show that there is government land in survey No.247 other than the land of the petitioners, wherein the petitioners tried to encroach and grab the government land. Since the petitioners have purchased the lands under registered sale deeds from the previous pattadaras and there is nothing on record to show that survey No.247 is a government land of 5 ASR,J Crlp_10289_2013 Mamidikunta, the allegations of committing trespass and causing mischief by them does not arise.
8. The allegations made in the complaint, this Court is of the view that, prima facie, do not clearly constitute any cognizable offence, much less alleged offences, justifying registration of the case and investigation thereon and this case is a fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed and proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 in F.I.R.No.244 of 2012 on the file of RGI Airport Police Station, Cyberabad, are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 06.06.2022 Nvl