Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The Act was enacted to empower authorities to effectively address cases of damage to public property, especially during riots or public disturbances. Its aim is to deter acts of vandalism and protect public assets essential for the functioning of society.

The court is explaining that the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984, only applies to situations where public property is damaged or destroyed during riots or public demonstrations. This means if there's damage to things like government buildings or infrastructure during these events, the PDPP Act can be used to address it.

So, if there's no actual damage or loss related to Gram Sabha land or any other village land due to illegal encroachment by someone living in the village or holding land there temporarily and remove encroachment after the notice, without causing damage or decreasing the land's value of the property, then the PDPP Act wouldn't be applicable.

In essence, if someone occupies land unlawfully temporary but doesn't cause any harm or decrease in value to the land, the PDPP Act doesn't come into play. This means that the Act is primarily concerned with instances where there is actual damage to public property or where the value of the property is diminished due to unlawful Occupation.

17. The judgment in the case of Munshi Lal and Another (supra), relied upon after noticing the provisions of the PDPP Act, has taken the view that as far as criminal proceedings 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. In so far as the observation made in the decision that the Act covers the specific area relating to any act of vandalism including the destruction or damage during any riots or public demonstration in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, is concerned, reference may be had to a recent decision by a Division Bench of this Court in Devnath Yadav vs. State of U.P. and three Others7, which was a case where an FIR under Section 2/3/5 of the PDPP Act, in respect of encroachment over the Gaon Sabha land, had been sought to be challenged. The Division Bench upon considering the legal position held that the judgment in the case of Munshi Lal and Another was distinguishable and made the following observations :-

23. The court is explaining that the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984, only applies to situations where public property is damaged or destroyed during riots or public demonstrations. This means if there's damage to things like government buildings or infrastructure during these events, the PDPP Act can be used to address it. So, if there's no actual damage or loss related to Gram Sabha land or any other village land due to illegal encroachment by someone living in the village or holding land there temporarily, without causing damage or decreasing the land's value, then the PDPP Act wouldn't be applicable. In essence, if someone occupies land unlawfully but doesn't cause any harm or decrease in value to the land, the PDPP Act doesn't come into play. This means that the Act is primarily concerned with instances where there is actual damage to public property or where the value of the property is diminished due to unlawful activities.