Telangana High Court
Ravi Suri vs M.V.V.Prasadarao on 15 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
Criminal Petition No.8363 OF 2021
Between:
Ravi Suri ... Petitioner
And
M.V.V.Prasada Rao,Tahsildar, Saidabad
and another. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 15.02.2023
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ CRL.P. No. 8363 of 2021
% Dated 06.02.2023
# Ravi Suri ... Petitioner
And
$ M.V.V.Prasada Rao,Tahsildar, Saidabad
and another ... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Sharan Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.Sudershan
Additional Public Prosecutor
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1 W.P.No.22822 of 2010, dated 14.12.2010
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8363 of 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.7315 of 2021 on the file
of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally,
Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the prosecution for the offences
under Sections 447, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 on the basis of the complaint
of the Tahsildar/2nd respondent.
3. Briefly, the case of the 1st respondent is that the concerned
Revenue Inspector found that the land in question declared as
Government land under A.P.Escheats & Bona Vacantia Act falls in
TS Nos.5 & 6 Block: L, Ward No.167 correlated to Sy.No.12 of
Teegalaguda Village was trespassed by this petitioner and he had
removed the government sign board and wrote on walls that
"Trespassers will be prosecuted. This land belongs to Ravi Suri
P.No.15 & 16 H.No.16-11-16/P/96, Teegalaguda, Saleem Nagar,
Malakpet, Hyderabad." The staff of the revenue office painted the
walls with black paint and erected a government sign board again
on 05.12.2020, but the said sign board was again removed by the
accused. During the course of investigation, the police found that
this petitioner had trespassed twice into the government land and
removed the government sign board painted on the walls, for which
reason, he has committed the alleged offences.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the land was allotted to one Lalana Kumari by the Hyderabad
Urban Development Cooperative Society by virtue of a sale deed in
the year 1960 and she was in peaceful continuous possession by
paying taxes. Thereafter, Lalana Kumari had executed an
agreement of sale with possession on 10.03.2018 in favour of the
petitioner's father and delivered possession to him. However, before
sale deed could be registered, the petitioner's father expired on
07.04.2009 and said Lalana Kumari expired on 12.09.2010.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transaction
between Lalana Kumari and the petitioner's father was not known
to either of their legal heirs.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner found some documents in his house, which include Will
dated 03.02.2009 in which father of Petitioner mentioned regarding
the transaction with Lalana Kumari. Having come to know about
the transaction, Petitioner issued public notice on 10.11.2020
about the agreement of sale. When the petitioner found that the
government has put up a board upon his property, he requested
the authorities to furnish the documents on the basis of which the
government was claiming title over the said land. Since there was
no response, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21680 of 2020 on
24.11.2020 for a direction against the revenue department to
remove the board and not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful
possession of the property. For the reason of filing the said Writ
Petition on 24.11.2020, the present false complaint was filed on
07.12.2020 by the Tahsildar. On making enquiries, the petitioner
came to know that the government had taken over the custody of
the land and same was published in the gazette dated 01.08.2018.
Again W.P.No.13669 of 2021 was filed challenging the said gazette
notification. Petitioner further filed OS No.363 of 2021 before the
XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for
directing the legal heirs of Lalana Kumari to get the sale deed
registered in his favour. Both the civil suit and also the writ
petitions are pending adjudication. For the said reason, the
proceedings against the petitioner have to the quashed.
6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.22822 of
2010 dated 14.12.2010 in the case of Deepthi Avenues Private
Limited v. The State of Anhra Pradesh and argued that the
Government has to resort to procedure prescribed under Section 11
of the Andhra Pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, 1974 and
the Petitioner's right cannot be denied over the property. The land
belongs to the Petitioner as such the question of trespass does not
arise. Accordingly the proceedings have to be quashed.
7. Procedure is prescribed under Telangana Escheats and Bona
Vacantia Act, 1974 (for short 'the Act') for the Government to take
possession of an 'escheat', which means any property of the owner
who dies intestate without leaving a legal heir or 'Bona Vacantia'
which means and includes any property, situated in the State, of
which there is no rightful owner, but does not include an escheat
or any movable property found in a public place. Under Section 9 of
the Act when it is found that particular property is in the nature of
an escheat or a bona vacantia or not in possession of any person or
if any person in possession surrenders such possession, the
concerned officer would take the property into custody and arrange
for its care. The concerned authority having followed the procedure
under the said Act published notification on 01.08.2018 stating
that the land was vacant since 60 years and there was no rightful
owner. Notice was also published in prominent newspapers in the
State.
8. Under Section 11(1) of the Act after the property is taken into
custody by the concerned officer, a notice shall be published in the
prescribed manner calling upon any person who may have interest
in such property to make their claim within three months from the
date of publication of such notice. In the event of any person
claiming such property within the period of said three months, the
concerned officer has to refer such claim to the civil court and the
concerned civil court shall decide as if it were a suit after giving
notice to the claimant(s) in accordance with Clause (a) of Sub-
section 3 of Section 11 of the Act.
9. In the present case, the government has notified the land as
'Escheat' and accordingly took possession of the land. Nearly 2 ½
years later, the petitioner is claiming that there were transactions
with respect to the said property way back in the year 1960 when
property was purchased by one Lalana Kumari and thereafter by
way of an agreement of sale in favour of his father in the year 2009.
10. The concerned revenue authorities having followed the
procedure under the Act, took possession of the said property.
Thereafter, the concerned authorities after taking the property into
possession have published the gazette and also notice as required
under the said Act. If any person has a claim to such property, the
said claim can be preferred within a period of three months from
the date of publication of the notice and if no claim is preferred
within a period of three months, the property would be declared as
'bona vacantia' or 'Escheat'. Any person to claim 'bona vacantia' or
'Escheat' property as his, the time prescribed is three months from
the date of publication. However, there may be extension to the
said time period depending on the facts, but the entire procedure
prescribed under the Act was followed and the Government has
taken possession of the property. Unless a competent Civil Court
identifies that this petitioner as the lawful owner on the basis his
claims, the Government is the rightful owner. In the said
circumstances, when the land in question was in possession of the
Government, the petitioner had indulged in removing the sign
board and also painting on the walls, which prima facie establish
the offence of mischief and criminal trespass. For the said reasons,
petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand disposed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.02.2023
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.kvs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8363 of 2021
Dated 15.02.2023
kvs
