Telangana High Court
Jameel Unissa vs M.V.V.Prasad Rao on 1 August, 2025
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12289 of 2023
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the
petitioner-accused seeking to quash the proceedings against her in
C.C.No.13510 of 2022 on the file of the learned VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, arising out of Crime No.99 of
2021 of Malakpet Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offences
under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
(for short 'the Act').
2. Heard Mr. Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mrs. S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the subject property i.e.,
Houses bearing Municipal Nos.16-2-738/14/A/3 and 16-2-738/14/A/4,
situated in Plot No.37 (Part 1/B) and admeasuring 141 square yards,
falling within T.S.No.5/1, Block-F, Ward No.170, and correspond to
Sy.No.318/1 of Gaddiannaram Village, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad, is
recorded as 'Kharij Khata' i.e., Government land. At the time when the
land was vacant, a notice board had been erected indicating the status of
the land as 'This land belongs to Government. Trespassers will be
prosecuted'. However, the petitioner-accused allegedly removed the
notice board, unlawfully constructed a compound wall along with a small
room in the said land. Upon noticing the unauthorized construction, the
de facto complainant lodged the present complaint against the petitioner-
accused.
4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
4.1. The petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of subject
property, having purchased the same from one Mrs. Nazeem Banu,
through registered sale deed bearing document No.5441 of 2019, dated
20.06.2019. When the Revenue officials interfered with her possession,
the petitioner filed W.P.No.19181 of 2019 before this Court. The
petitioner's vendors have also filed W.P.No.9931 of 2015 before this
Court in respect of the entire property i.e., land admeasuring 1875
square yards in Municipal No.16-2-738/14. In W.P.No.9931 of 2015, this
Court has granted interim order in favour of the petitioners therein,
restraining the respondents therein and also permitted the petitioners
therein to proceed with the construction in accordance with the
sanctioned plan.
4.2. In respect of the land in Sy.No.318/1, civil disputes are pending
before this Court and this Court has passed several interim orders in
favour of the petitioners therein. Without considering the same, the Police
have filed mechanically filed charge sheet against the petitioner herein,
basing on the complaint lodged by respondent No.1-Tahsildar.
4.3. The Revenue officials/Government have filed Land Grabbing
Cases in respect of land in Sy.No.318/1, however, the same were
dismissed. Questioning the said orders, the Government has preferred
an Appeal before this Court. In the said appeal, this Court has granted
status quo in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.04.17 guntas in
Sy.No.318/1. Though respondent No.1 alleged that there is criminal
trespass over the Government land, it is the version of the petitioner that
he is the original and rightful owner of the subject property and that being
so, the question of trespass does not even arise.
4.4. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joseph Salvaraj A. v. State
of Gujarat and others 1 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph
No.17, wherein, it is held as follows:
"17. In our opinion, the matter appears to be purely civil in
nature. There appears to be no cheating or a dishonest
inducement for the delivery of property or breach of trust by the
appellant. The present FIR is an abuse of process of law. The
purely civil dispute, is sought to be given a colour of a criminal
offence to wreak vengeance against the appellant. It does not
meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal
(2011) 7 SCC 59
accusation. In such type of cases, it is necessary to draw a
distinction between civil wrong and criminal wrong as has been
succinctly held by this Court in Devendra Vs. State of U.P.
[(2009) 7 SCC 495], relevant part thereof is reproduced
hereinbelow:
27......... A distinction must be made between a civil wrong and a
criminal wrong. When dispute between the parties constitute only a
civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, the courts would not permit a
person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of
the offence has been made out."
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, on
instructions, submitted that the subject land in Sy.No.318/1 is
Government land, however, the petitioner claimed that she had
purchased the same through registered documents. There are specific
allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled in the
complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and
hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage.
Accordingly, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has trespassed into
the Government land and raised unauthorized constructions. In support
of her claim, the petitioner filed link documents and registered sale deed
bearing document No.5441 of 2019, dated 20.06.2019, which disclose
that she has purchased the subject land from one Nazeem Banu, for a
valid sale consideration. Hence, it is evident that the petitioner is the
absolute owner and possessor of the subject property. The petitioner has
filed W.P.No.19181 of 2019 before this Court, when the Revenue officials
interfered with her possession. However, the same was subsequently
withdrawn.
7. The petitioner's vendors have filed W.P.No.9931 of 2015 before
this Court in respect of entire property i.e., land admeasuring 1875
square yards in Municipal No.16-2-738/14 situated at Gaddiannaram,
Malakpet and this Court has granted interim order in favour of the
petitioners therein, restraining the respondents therein and also permitted
the petitioners therein to proceed with the construction in accordance
with sanctioned plan.
8. The Revenue officials have filed W.P.No.16789 of 2011 before this
Court, wherein, this Court has passed an interim direction to stop the
constructions in relation to the land claimed by the Government i.e.,
Ac.109.21 guntas in Sy.No.318/1 situated at Gaddiannaram/Asmangadh,
Hyderabad, on 20.06.2011. However, when the similarly situated persons
as that of the petitioner herein, who possess land in Sy.No.318/1, have
filed interlocutory applications in the said writ petition, after considering
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the said
interim order, dated 20.06.2011 was modified to the effect that it shall not
cover the house numbers of the similarly situated persons. Furthermore,
this Court, by an order, dated 04.04.2017 further modified the interim
order, dated 20.06.2011 restricting to the extent covered by L.G.C.No.54
of 2002 of the Special Court i.e., Ac.4.17 guntas of land, instead of entire
extent of land i.e., Acs.109.21 guntas of land in Survey No.318/1 of
Gaddiannaram Village. Even the orders of this Court in the above writ
petitions are in favour of the persons similarly situated as that of the
petitioner herein.
9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has produced a copy of
written instructions submitted by the Tahsildar, Saidabad Tahsil. A
perusal of the said instructions would clearly show that the Government
of India has not accepted the rights of Nizam over the land admeasuring
Ac.109.21 guntas in Sy.No.318/1 of Gaddiannaram Village. Hence, it can
be construed that the land in Sy.No.318/1 is a private land, but not
Government land, as claimed by the de facto complainant. The
prosecution has not produced any documents to prove that the subject
land is a Government land. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed
registered sale deed bearing document No.5441 of 2019, dated
20.06.2019 in support of her contention. When the petitioner has filed the
said sale deed and link documents proving her ownership, her rights
cannot be denied in the absence of any documents being produced by
the prosecution to prove that the land in dispute is a Government land.
10. Apart from that, if there is any dispute with regard to the subject
land whether it is a Government land or of the petitioner and if the
petitioner is considered as encroacher, it is for the Government to issue
notice to the petitioner and initiate Revenue proceedings against her to
evict her as per law. Though the Land Grabbing Cases were filed against
the similarly situated persons, the same were dismissed. Therefore,
registering the cases against the petitioner contending that she has
encroached upon the subject land would not be termed as an offence
until and unless, the Government proves that it is the owner of the
subject land. In the instant case, no evidence is produced by the
prosecution to prove that the subject land is a Government land, as such,
the question of petitioner trespassing into the Government land and
raising unauthorized constructions, as alleged by the de facto
complainant does not arise. The dispute involved in the present case is
purely civil in nature. However, instead of pursuing civil remedies, the
de facto complainant has lodged the present complaint against the
petitioner herein, colouring a civil dispute into criminal offence, which
does not meet the strict standard of proof required to sustain a criminal
accusation.
11. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the proceedings
against the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the
proceedings against the petitioner-accused in C.C.No.13510 of 2022 on
the file of the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Hyderabad.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 01.08.2025
rev
