Village Development Officer Not Competent to File FIR for Damage to Public Property: Allahabad High Court
Court quashed criminal proceedings against two villagers, holding that only revenue authorities are empowered to act in cases involving damage to public property
The Allahabad High Court sets aside criminal case based on an FIR by a VDO for public property damage
The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against two villagers accused of damaging a public drainage system, holding that the Village Development Officer (VDO) who lodged the FIR had no legal authority to initiate the case.
The bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava, while allowing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), set aside the chargesheet and cognizance order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, in connection with a 2023 case. The case had been registered under Sections 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The FIR, filed by the Village Development Officer of Utraon in Prayagraj district on the complaint of the Gram Pradhan, alleged that the applicants had damaged a public drainage situated at plot number 136 by breaking its structure. Following investigation, the police filed a chargesheet, and the trial court took cognizance of the offence on June 13, 2024.
However, the applicants challenged the proceedings, arguing that the VDO was not competent to lodge such an FIR and that the issue, if any, related to public land should have been addressed by the revenue authorities in accordance with the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Their counsel pointed out that Section 67 of the Code provides a specific mechanism for dealing with alleged encroachments or damage to public property including issuing notices and verifying claims through revenue officials.
It was further submitted that the revenue records clearly showed that plot number 136 comprised a pathway and a pond, making the allegation of damaging a drainage untenable. The applicants claimed they were subjected to unwarranted criminal proceedings without any proper verification of records or lawful authority.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, contended that the drainage might exist alongside the pathway on the said plot and hence could have been damaged.
After hearing both sides, the High Court found merit in the applicants’ submissions. It observed that the VDO did not fall within the ambit of “competent authority” under either the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 or the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Court clarified that only duly authorized revenue officers are empowered to take action when public property is allegedly damaged or encroached upon.
“The Village Development Officer/Village Secretary does not come under the ambit of revenue authorities,” court observed, adding that the magistrate failed to consider whether the investigation had involved verification by competent authorities.
Court highlighted a previous coordinate bench decision in Munshi Lal and Another vs. State of U.P. (2020), which had similarly emphasized adherence to Section 67 procedures before taking penal action concerning public land.
Setting aside the entire criminal proceedings, Court held that the FIR, chargesheet, and cognizance order were unsustainable in law. “In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the entire proceedings are hereby set aside,” the court ordered.
Case Title: Lal Bahadur And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Order Date: September 25, 2025
Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava