Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings C.C.No.22 of 2018, pending on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Land Grabbing Court at Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 120(b) read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act.

The Tahsildar, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal - the 3rd respondent lodged report with the police making serious allegations against the petitioner/A2 and others that the land in Survey No.184/4 of Paradesipalem is Government Land and the accused trespassed into the land by doing criminal act. Based on the complaint, the police Paradesipalem, registered Crime No. 634 of 2015 and issued FIR.

The present petition is filed by A2 to quash the proceedings on the ground that the petitioner is in enjoyment of the property and that the land in Survey No.184/4 of Paradesipalem does not belong to the Government and the 2nd respondent only to harass the petitioner and Achanta Bharani Kumar lodged false report with the police and got investigated and filed charge sheet. It is further contended that the police in collusion with the 2nd respondent filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others and what all the police collected the material, is only one document i.e. pahani which has been filed along with the charge sheet. A bare perusal of the pahani that it is not a certified copy, as such it cannot be looked into, cannot be taken into consideration and it is not shown to which year it relates to. It is further contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land in Survey No.184/4. Even the address of the pahani does not disclose that the Government is owner of the property. It is also further contended that in fact, Achanta Bharani Kumar is the owner and possessor of dry land to an extent of Ac.3.96 cents and Ac.0.97 cents, totaling to Ac.04.93 cents in Survey Nos.185/3 and 186/1 of Paradesipalem, Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. As the 3rd respondent is interfering in agricultural land, he filed W.P.No.23900 of 2015 along with W.P.M.P.No.31105 of 2015 resisting his interference and this Court passed an order of status quo existing as on that day i.e. 24.08.2015 and inspite of the said orders, the 3rd respondent disputing the identity and boundaries of the land and thereby consequently interfering in his agricultural operations.

The allegations made in the charge sheet dated 20.09.2015 as part of duties, Singapalli Padma, Vullage Revenue Officer and Sambarika Bangarraju, Village Revenue Assistant of Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal visited the Government land in Survey No.184/4 of Paradesipalem and found a car bearing No.AP27 L 5559. The petitioner along with other accused brought one JCB and leveling the Government land. Again on 13.09.2015 at about 9 hours, LW3 and LW.4 visited the land and found the accused planting instant trees and when they shouted to stop, they ran away from the site and on their observation, the said trees are coconut and mango instant trees and also found a board, written as land belonging to Achanta Bharani Kumar in the land in Survey No.184/4 of Paradesipalem.

AIR 1990 SC 494 2013 (10) SCC 591 The main endeavour of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he obtained pahani for the year 1420 Fasli and even according to the entries made therein one Veluru Jogulakshmi is in possession and enjoyment of the property. But it is settled law that the entries in pahanies are only for the fiscal purpose and the revenue authorities are preparing the pahanies for the land within their limits and even if Veluru Jogulakshmi continuing in possession of the property that would not confer any right over the property. Therefore, based on paharnies produced before the Court, the petitioner cannot claim title over the property. Even otherwise, the question of title is disputed question of facts to be decided only during trial and at this stage, this Court cannot come to the conclusion without any evidence before the Court that the land in Survey No.184/4 of Paradesipalem belongs to Veluru Jogulakshmi and not the Government land. On that ground, this Court cannot quash the proceedings in view of the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr..P.C. The Apex Court in State of Haryana v Bhajanlal3 laid down the following seven guidelines: