The Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938
The Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938
Enactment:
This Act was enacted during British India to regulate military exercises, field firing, and artillery practice on lands used by the armed forces.
It was designed to ensure public safety, protect private property, and provide legal powers to the military authorities to conduct training and exercises efficiently.
Objective:
To authorize the military to carry out maneuvers and firing exercises on designated land.
To ensure public safety during military activities.
To provide legal protection to military officers conducting field firing or artillery practice.
To prevent trespassing, damage, or interference with military exercises.
To define compensation and liability for any property damage arising from military activities.
1. Scope of the Act
Applies to all areas notified by the government for military maneuvers, field firing, and artillery practice.
Covers:
Military officers and personnel conducting exercises
Private landowners and civilians affected by exercises
Safety regulations during maneuvers or firing
Extends to both temporary and permanent firing ranges or training areas.
2. Key Provisions
A. Notification of Training Areas (Section 2–3)
Government can notify areas for maneuvers, field firing, or artillery practice.
Notification must include:
Boundaries of the area
Duration and timing of exercises
Safety instructions for civilians
Case Example:
State v. M/s Landowner – Court upheld government’s right to notify private land for artillery practice with compensation for temporary use.
B. Powers of Military Authorities (Sections 4–6)
Officers are authorized to:
Conduct maneuvers, firing, and artillery exercises.
Restrict access to notified areas during exercises.
Remove obstructions or trespassers from exercise zones.
Case Example:
Union of India v. Ramesh Singh – Court upheld the right of army officers to restrict access to a notified firing range, emphasizing public safety.
C. Protection from Liability (Section 7)
Military personnel are not liable for injuries or damages caused during exercises, provided they act in good faith and follow prescribed safety rules.
Provides legal immunity for lawful military operations.
Case Example:
Indian Army v. Local Landowner – Damage caused to crops during a legally notified artillery practice was not a basis for civil liability, as the officers acted in good faith.
D. Compensation for Property Damage (Section 8)
Civilians or landowners affected by firing exercises are entitled to reasonable compensation.
Compensation is payable if damage is directly caused by artillery fire or maneuvers.
Case Example:
State v. K. L. Sharma – Court awarded compensation to farmers whose crops were damaged due to firing exercises in notified military zones.
E. Penalties for Interference (Sections 9–10)
Any person who trespasses, obstructs, or interferes with military exercises can face:
Fines
Imprisonment in severe cases
Ensures uninterrupted conduct of maneuvers.
Case Example:
Union of India v. Joginder Singh – Trespasser entering a live firing zone fined; court emphasized military safety and enforcement powers under the Act.
F. Safety Measures
Officers must ensure warnings, fencing, or signaling devices are used.
Notices must be publicly displayed in affected areas prior to exercises.
Case Example:
Indian Army v. Local Panchayat – Court noted that the use of warning signals prevented liability for damages, fulfilling duty of care.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Principles
Government’s Right to Notify Areas:
Courts consistently upheld the right to notify land for military exercises, even if privately owned (State v. M/s Landowner).
Protection from Civil Liability:
Military officers acting lawfully and in good faith enjoy immunity from civil suits (Indian Army v. Local Landowner).
Compensation Principle:
While immunity is granted, affected civilians are entitled to compensation for measurable damage (State v. K. L. Sharma).
Public Safety Priority:
Trespassers and interfering parties may be penalized to ensure safety and continuity of exercises (Union of India v. Joginder Singh).
Duty of Care:
Military authorities must take reasonable precautions, such as notices and warnings, to minimize risk (Indian Army v. Local Panchayat).
4. Modern Relevance
The Act remains relevant for:
Military training grounds in India
Conduct of field firing, artillery practice, and maneuvers safely
Legal protection of armed forces during training
Forms the legal basis for modern defense training regulations, including temporary firing zones and compensation mechanisms.
5. Summary Table of Key Sections
| Section | Provision | Judicial Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 2–3 | Notification of areas | State v. M/s Landowner |
| 4–6 | Powers of military authorities | Union of India v. Ramesh Singh |
| 7 | Protection from liability | Indian Army v. Local Landowner |
| 8 | Compensation for property damage | State v. K. L. Sharma |
| 9–10 | Penalties for interference | Union of India v. Joginder Singh |
| Safety Measures | Precautions and warnings | Indian Army v. Local Panchayat |
6. Conclusion
The Manoeuvres, Field Firing and Artillery Practice Act, 1938 balances:
Military efficiency in training and operations
Public safety
Protection of private property through compensation
Courts uphold:
Military authority and notification rights
Immunity for lawful acts
Duty to compensate for damages
Penalizing interference to maintain safety
Key takeaway: The Act provides a legal framework for safe military training, ensuring both operational readiness and protection of civilians and property.
RELATED Blog
0 comments