Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, Ms. Anjali Upadhya Advocate on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2 and Learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh.

3. Brief facts of the case is that Opposite Party No. 2 lodged First Information Report (here-in-after referred to as 'F.I.R.') dated 03.04.2019 as Case Crime No. 375 of 2019 under Sections 288 & 420 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of PDPP Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar against the applicant and other co-accused persons alleging therein that applicants and other co-accused raised multistorey buildings within the limit of Noida Industrial Development Authority over Khasra No. 296 & 299 of village Shahberi without prior permisson of Grater Noida Authority. It has also been alleged that authority concerned directed them not to raise illegal construction in the area of Noida Industrial Development Authority but they do not stop it. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant and others under Sections 288 & 420 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 PDPP Act, cognizance has been taken by A.C.J.M. 3rd G.B. Nagar vide order dated 21.01.2020.

Public property has been defined in Section 2(b) of the PDPP Act which provides as under:-

Section 2(b) PDPP Act:- "public property" means any property, whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of-
(i) the Central Government; or
(ii) any State Government;or
(iii) any local authority; or
(iv) any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act; or
(v) any company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); or

In instant case the property is neither owned by the Government nor it is in possession of the authority rather it is Bhumidhari of the applicant but the government of U.P. has notified the village vide notification dated 21.02.1994 hence it is the notified area of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority. In exercise of powers under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and Section 19 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority has made regulation as " The Greater Noida Industrial Development Area Building Regulation 2010" with the prior approval of the State Government to regulate the erection of building within Greater Noida Industrial Area. The State Government has issued notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and both the notifications have been published. The land owners have challenged the above notifications and filed Writ Petition No. 57208/2014 before this Court in which parties are directed to maintain status quo. Thus after the village being notified by the Government of U.P. and the Noida Authority after approval of Government has made regulations in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976 and after publication of notification issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act the land is under control of the authority subject to the orders and judgment of the court in pending writ petition and it comes under perview of Section 2(b)(iii) of PDPP Act subject to the orders and judgment of the court is pending petition regarding this land and any act of the applicant of change in the property so as to diminish its value or utility comes under the definition of Mischief as is provided 2(a) of the PDPP Act.

In view of above, it cannot be said that offence under Section 3 PDPP Act is not made out against the applicant.

13. In view of the fact of this case and aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the uncontroverted allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of offence under Sections 288 & 420 I.P.C. against the applicant but at this stage it cannot be said that no offence under Section 3 PDPP Act is disclosed against the applicant.