Chintala Galimallaiah vs The State of A.P.

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.—In this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner requests this court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.76 of 1999 pending on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Janagaon, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447 I.P.C. and Section 3 of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.

The allegations in the charge sheet are as follows: The Government allotted a house plot measuring 190 Square yards in S. No.53/1, vide Plot No.138 under assignment to one Chinthalagalli Mallaiah of Jangaon as he is a houseless poor and delivered possession to him. As per the assignment rules, the said assigned land shall not be transferred to any person and in the event of any such transfer, both the seller and the purchaser are liable to be punished. It is further alleged that the petitioner having knowledge about the said Rule, "purchased the said assigned plot from the said beneficiary, trespassed into the assigned plot and also constructed a house therein without obtaining any licence from the authorities concerned." On coming to know about the illegal trespass of the petitioner into the assigned land in question, one Mr. Mohd. Latheef Shareef, the Village Administrative Officer, Janagaon, (L.W.2) on the instructions of Sri A. Rajeshwar Reddy, Mandal Revenue Officer, Janagaon (L.W.1), visited the land in question and directed the petitioner not to make any construction thereon. But, it is further alleged that, the petitioner without caring for his words, carried on the construction. It is stated that the offence took place prior to 12-2-1999. Therefore, on the basis of a complaint lodged by L.W.1, a case in Crime No.18 of 1999 was registered against the petitioner. The police conducted investigation into the case and after completion of the same, they filed charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s 447 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

It is really unfortunate that the police without verifying the true factual position filed a charge sheet against the petitioner who himself was the beneficiary. A reading of the charge sheet shows that one Chinthalagalli Mallaiah was assigned a plot measuring 190 square yards in S. No.53/1. Chinthalagalli Mallaiah is no other than the petitioner herein (against whom the police filed charge sheet). If that is so, it is not known as to how the petitioner has committed the offence of criminal trespass, punishable u/s 447 I.P.C. or an offence u/s 3 (1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act.

It is true that the assigned land cannot be transferred and even if it is transferred, no right or title in such assigned land shall vest in any person acquiring the land by such transfer. The provisions of Section 3 (1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 will come into play only when the plot which is assigned to a person is sold to another person, in which case both the seller and the purchaser are liable u/s 3 (1) of the said Act. In the instant case, according to the charge sheet, admittedly, Chintalagalli Mallaiah of Jangaon, (i.e., the petitioner) is a houseless poor and he was allotted a house plot of 190 square yards in S. No.53/1 vide Plot No.138 and that he was also making some construction therein. When that is the allegation, I do not think, it attracts the provisions of either Section 447 I.P.C. or Section 3 (1) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act.

Even if it is accepted that the petitioner has committed any offence, according to Section 7 (3) of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, no court shall take cognizance of an offence which is committed under any of the provisions of the said Act, except with the previous sanction of the District Collector. In this case, admittedly, the S.I. of Police, Janagaon P.S., has not obtained any such sanction from the District Collector before launching prosecution against the petitioner herein. On that ground also, the prosecution in this case is not maintainable.

In the light of the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and the proceedings in C.C. No. 76 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Janagaon, are liable to be quashed.

In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No. 76 of 1999 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Janagaon, are hereby quashed.