Allahabad High Court Quashes Proceedings Initiated by Village Development Officer for Damage to Public Property
Court affirms only revenue authorities are competent to initiate action under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings initiated against Lal Bahadur and another in connection with damage to public property, underscoring the lack of authority of Village Development Officers to commence such actions under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Justice Saurabh Srivastava, presiding over the case, meticulously reviewed the proceedings of Case No. 1127 of 2024 arising from Case Crime No. 112 of 2023 and found the initiation by the Village Development Officer/Village Secretary to be outside their statutory competence.
The case revolved around allegations that the applicants had caused damage to drainage situated at plot no. 136, as reported by the Village Development Officer following a complaint by the Gram Pradhan. Despite detailed investigations and subsequent charge sheets, the court clarified that only revenue authorities, as per Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006, have the competence to handle such matters.
The court emphasized that the informant, opposite party no. 2, did not possess the legal authority to file grievances regarding public property damage, which is exclusively under the purview of revenue authorities following due verification of records. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that the proceedings were fundamentally flawed as they were initiated by an incompetent authority, a standpoint that the court upheld.
Highlighting procedural lapses, Justice Srivastava noted that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, failed to ascertain whether the revenue records had been duly examined by competent authorities. The records indicated that plot no. 136 was public property, thus negating the possibility of unauthorized destruction as alleged.
The judgment also referenced a precedent set by a co-ordinate Bench in Munshi Lal and Another v. State of U.P., reinforcing that proceedings under the Act of 1984 should be pursued only by authorized revenue authorities. By setting aside the proceedings and the cognizance order dated 13.06.2024, the court has reaffirmed the statutory boundaries concerning the initiation of public property damage cases.
The decision is expected to clarify procedural ambiguities and reinforce the statutory framework governing public property protection, ensuring only designated authorities undertake such proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Competence of Village Development Officer/Village Secretary to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, was questioned - The court held that such authority lies only with competent revenue authorities under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 - Proceedings initiated by an incompetent person were set aside.
Statutory provision(s): Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Sections 3/5; Revenue Code, 2006 Section 67
Lal Bahadur v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791046
