Proceedings under PDPP Act not maintainable against illegal encroachment: Allahabad HC
While quashing proceedings under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 against the applicant, Brahmdutt Yadav, Justice Saurabh Srivastava relied on the earlier decision of his coordinate bench in Munshi Lal and another vs. state of Uttar Pradesh and another, where it was held that "as far as criminal proceeding for illegal encroachment, damage or trespass over the land belonging to Gram Sabha is concerned, the same can be undertaken but it would be subject to the adjudication of rights of the parties over the land in dispute, as the said determination can be done only by the revenue court".
In the present case, Lekhpal lodged an FIR against the applicant under Section 3/5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, alleging that upon survey, he found that the gram sabha land, which was public property, had been encroached upon by nearby farmers. It was alleged that there was damage to public property.
Subsequently, a charge-sheet was filed and summons were issued, which were challenged by the applicant before the Allahabad High Court.
During the court proceedings, the counsel for the applicant urged non-application of mind by the magistrate concerned while issuing the summoning order. It was argued that the issue regarding encroachment was to be decided under Section 67 of the Revenue Code, 2006 in proceedings for eviction.
Taking note of the judgment in Munshi Lal and another, the court observed that the purpose of the 1984 Act was to "curb acts of vandalism and damage to public property including destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion".
The court in its decision dated April 15 and uploaded recently held that the continuation of the process under the 1984 Act against the applicant was abuse of the process of law and the court quashed the same.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Supreme Court stays ₹273.5 crore GST notice against Patanjali Ayurved
In a relief to yoga guru Ramdev-founded Patanjali Ayurved Ltd, the Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the recovery of a ₹ 273.5 crore goods and services tax (GST) penalty imposed on the consumer goods company by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and A.S. Chandurkar issued notices to the Union government and DGGI on Patanjali's appeal, directing that the penalty be stayed until further orders. The court also agreed to examine the Allahabad High Court's ruling that had upheld the levy. The case stems from DGGI receiving information about alleged suspicious tax credit claims and fake invoicing involving companies supplying goods to Patanjali's manufacturing units in Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra. Investigators alleged that Patanjali issued invoices without actually supplying goods and had wrongly claimed input tax credit (ITC), amounting to tax evasion. On 19 April 2024, DGGI issued a tax show-cause notice proposing penalties of about ₹ 273.5 crore under Section 122 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act for alleged offences during the tax period of April 2018 to March 2022. A separate tax demand was raised under Section 74, which deals with recovery of unpaid tax in fraud cases. In January this year, the department dropped the Section 74 tax demand for Patanjali's Uttarakhand unit after scrutiny revealed that the transactions were genuine, sales exceeded purchases, and input tax credit had been properly passed on. Authorities found no substantial reason to hold that tax was evaded or ITC was wrongly availed. However, the department continued with the ₹ 273.5 crore penalty under Section 122, which penalises GST violations such as issuing fake invoices, even if no tax is due. Patanjali challenged the penalty in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that Section 122 penalties were criminal in nature and could only be imposed after a criminal trial, and that the penalties could not stand once the Section 74 proceedings were dropped. On 29 May 2025, the High Court dismissed the plea, ruling that such penalties are civil in nature, can be imposed by GST officers, and deal with violations different from those under Section 74. Patanjali then moved the Supreme Court, arguing it was unfair to continue the penalty when the main tax case had been cancelled, and questioning both the scope of Section 122 and the powers of GST officers to impose such penalties. The apex court has now granted interim relief by staying the show-cause notice until the matter is heard in detail.
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
'Corridor In Vrindavan, Improved Facilities': What Is Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust Bill?
Last Updated: The legislation promises improved facilities, streamlined crowd management, and greater financial transparency, while assuring that centuries-old rituals remain untouched. Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust Bill, 2025, was presented and passed in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly on Wednesday — the third day of Monsoon Session. The legislation promises improved facilities, streamlined crowd management, and greater financial transparency, while assuring that centuries-old rituals remain untouched. The bill also proposes the creation of a Banke Bihari Corridor to manage the overwhelming crowds at the revered temple. What is Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust Bill, 2025? The bill seeks to establish a statutory trust with full administrative authority over the temple's assets, finances, crowd management, and facilities, while pledging to preserve the shrine's centuries-old traditions. Interestingly, the bill was tabled despite the Supreme Court recently staying a similar ordinance issued on May 26 this year, which aimed to bring the temple under a newly created trust. On August 8, the apex court set up an interim 14-member committee, headed by retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Ashok Kumar, to oversee the temple's day-to-day affairs until the Allahabad High Court decides on the ordinance's validity. The government has cited the August 2022 stampede at the temple, in which two devotees died and seven were injured, as a major reason for introducing the bill. The shrine occupies around 870 square metres, with only 365 square metres functioning as the viewing courtyard. Narrow access routes to the temple, combined with lakhs of devotees arriving annually – especially during festivals – create acute congestion. The 2022 tragedy, the government's statement says, exposed the urgent need for efficient crowd control, safer facilities, and regulated darshan arrangements. The bill also ties into the state's vision for a Banke Bihari Corridor, modelled on Varanasi's Kashi Vishwanath Corridor, to ease access and improve infrastructure for pilgrims. Corridor Project and Legal Disputes The corridor plan has been embroiled in legal disputes. After the Kashi Vishwanath project's inauguration in February 2022, the Adityanath government shifted its focus to Vrindavan's most famous shrine. It proposed using temple funds to acquire five acres of surrounding land for the corridor, prompting opposition from the temple's Goswami priest community. The Allahabad High Court barred the use of temple funds for the project. In May this year, the Supreme Court overruled the High Court, allowing the funds to be used, after which the state issued the May 26 ordinance creating the trust. But following a review petition from the Goswamis, the court modified its earlier order, deleting the part that permitted use of temple funds and acknowledging it had erred by not hearing the priest community. This led to the stay on the ordinance earlier this month. Custodianship and Administrative Powers The bill proposes the formation of the Shri Banke Bihari Ji Temple Trust as the custodian of all movable and immovable assets of the shrine, including idols, ornaments, jewellery, cash, cheques, drafts, hundi collections, gifts, grants, contributions, and properties. It grants the trust powers to set darshan timings, appoint priests and staff, determine their salaries, ensure the safety of devotees, and maintain financial transparency through proper record-keeping. The trust would also be empowered to acquire movable or immovable property worth up to Rs20 lakh without state approval, with larger purchases requiring government sanction. It would be authorised to resolve disputes over claims to the deity, temple, or associated lands. Composition of the Proposed Trust According to the bill, the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust will have 18 members – 11 nominated and 7 ex-officio. All nominated members must be Sanatani Hindus, including three eminent representatives from Vaishnav sects, three from other Sanatan Dharma traditions, three distinguished individuals such as scholars or social workers, and two Goswami tradition representatives – one each from the Raj-Bhog and Shayan-Bhog Sevayats, descendants of the temple's 16th-century founder, Swami Haridas Ji. Ex-officio members will include the District Magistrate, Senior Superintendent of Police, Municipal Commissioner, CEOs of the Braj Teerth Kshetra Vikas Parishad and the Trust, and a state government nominee. If any ex-officio nominee is non-Hindu or not aligned with Sanatan Dharma, a junior officer will replace them. The Trust's CEO will hold ADM rank, and trustees will not be personally liable for decisions made in good faith. Promised Facilities for Devotees The bill also promises provisions for improved facilities for devotees, including prasad distribution centres, dedicated darshan paths for the elderly and persons with disabilities, drinking water stations, resting benches, queue and access management kiosks, cow shelters, an Annakshetra (community kitchen), hotels, inns, exhibition halls, canteens, and waiting rooms. These, the government says, will provide world-class amenities without disrupting religious practices. It has assured that all rituals, festivals, customs, and traditions of the temple will continue without change. Political Debate and Community Concerns Politically, the move has sparked debate, as the BJP – now championing the bill – has historically opposed government interference in temple administration. The Goswami priest community fears the trust could dilute their traditional control over the shrine's affairs. The government, however, insists that the trust will be an autonomous body designed to 'preserve and formalise existing traditions" while ensuring 'financial transparency" and accountability. 'The purpose of the trust is not to take over assets or properties of the temple. Instead, it is to merely ensure that financial transparency is maintained," the official statement clarified. Though the Assembly has passed the bill, its implementation remains stalled due to ongoing court proceedings. Until the Supreme Court's stay is lifted and the legal questions resolved, the trust will remain on paper only, with the interim committee continuing to manage the shrine's affairs. Click here to add News18 as your preferred news source on Google. Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Banke Bihari temple vrindavan view comments Location : Lucknow, India, India First Published: August 14, 2025, 16:19 IST News explainers 'Corridor In Vrindavan, Improved Facilities': What Is Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust Bill? Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
NDTV
9 hours ago
- NDTV
"Not Going To Lose Our Cool": Supreme Court On Another Faulty High Court Order
Days after controversy over Allahabad High Court judge's faulty order, the Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwallah and R Mahadevan on Wednesday set aside a Rajasthan High Court order denying anticipatory bail to a couple in a case which was found to be a civil dispute but was given a criminal colour. Justice JB Pardiwallah remarked that he was "controlling like anything" and would laugh it off this time. "We are not going to lose our cool today. Today, we are controlling like anything. The medicine is to laugh," he said, before bursting into laughter on reading the case file with the same mistake that had triggered him to bar a high court judge from hearing criminal cases till he retires. The Supreme Court last week slammed Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court for his remarks made in a judgment suggesting that criminal prosecution may be permitted to recover money as an alternative remedy in a civil suit. The same bench of Justice JB Pardiwallah had ordered the removal of criminal cases from Justice Kumar's roster after finding that he had allowed criminal prosecution to continue in a purely civil dispute. This move had sparked controversy as 13 judges from the Allahabad High Court then wrote to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, saying that a Chief Justice of a high court is the master of the roster in the high court and Justice Pardiwallah's order was a judicial overreach. CJI Gavai then sent the case back to Justice Pardiwallah's bench of reconsideration. On August 4, the bench of Justice Pardiwallah rolled back the directive that had barred the Allahabad high court judge from hearing any criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure and ordered him to sit with a senior colleague to "learn the nuances of law." The controversy had barely subsided when another such case, this time from the Rajasthan High Court, came in front of the same bench. The top court was hearing an appeal by a couple against the Rajasthan High Court's refusal to grant them anticipatory bail in a case arising from an alleged unpaid amount for a plywood consignment. The complaint claimed Rs 3.5 lakh had been paid, but the balance of Rs 12.5 lakh remained unpaid. A first information report (FIR) was registered against the couple under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The top court noted that even on a plain reading of the case, the only possible allegation was cheating. It was observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust could not arise once there was a sale transaction. "It is but obvious that the only submission before the High Court could be that it is a case of civil dispute. There is no question of criminal breach of trust once there is a sale transaction. This is a settled position of law," the court said. The judges expressed disappointment with the reasoning in the High Court order, particularly the part that recorded the submission of the public prosecutor that recovery of the Rs 12.5 lakh balance could not be effected because the accused were protected from arrest. Justice Pardiwallah laughed again and said, "What we have understood is that according to the State, police machinery is required for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. We need not say anything further in the matter. Ordinarily, we do not set aside orders of the High Court denying bail. But this is an order we deem fit to set aside."
