Attachment under Section 164 BNSS is justified where disputed title and possession create an apprehension of breach of peace.

The petitioners and respondents Nos. 6 and 7 disputed title and possession over 69 Kanals 7 Marlas of land situated in Village Joshi, District Panipat.

Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 relied upon a compromise decree dated 04.09.2019, agreements to sell and a sale deed; however, execution of the decree was dismissed on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction, and the revision against that order remained pending.

Their claim under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 was also dismissed, while the Gram Panchayat asserted that the land was shamlat deh and pursued separate civil proceedings.

Following complaints alleging threats and obstruction in cultivation, the police submitted a Kalandra under Section 164 BNSS before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Israna.

On 13.04.2026, the SDM attached the land, appointed the Tehsildar, Madlauda as Superdar, directed harvesting of the standing crop, and ordered deposit of the sale proceeds in the Government treasury.

The petitioners’ revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat on 22.04.2026, leading to the present petition under Section 528 BNSS.

Whether proceedings for attachment and appointment of a receiver under Section 164 BNSS could be initiated when title and the right to possession of the disputed land were pending adjudication before civil and revenue courts.

Whether the SDM had sufficient material to attach the land and appoint the Tehsildar as Superdar under Sections 164 and 165 BNSS on the ground of an apprehension of breach of peace and uncertainty regarding possession.

Whether the High Court should interfere under Section 528 BNSS with the concurrent orders of the SDM and the Additional Sessions Judge.

The Court applied Sections 164 and 165 BNSS, corresponding substantially to Sections 145 and 146 CrPC, governing preventive proceedings concerning disputes over possession likely to cause a breach of peace and the attachment of property or appointment of a receiver.

The Court relied on Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P., AIR 1985 SC 472, for the principle that proceedings under Section 145 CrPC should ordinarily not continue where a civil suit concerning title or possession, with available protective relief, is pending.

It relied on Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey, 2000 (2) RCR (Criminal) 614, which clarifies that the mere pendency of a civil suit is not an absolute bar, but such proceedings should not continue where the civil court is adjudicating title and possession and can grant protection concerning the property.

Under Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 961, attachment requires more than a mere apprehension of breach of peace: the Magistrate must find an emergency, inability to determine possession, or that neither party was in actual possession; attachment under the corresponding Section 146 is connected with and cannot be detached from the Section 145 inquiry.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is to be exercised sparingly, particularly where interference would effectively amount to a second revision.

The Court found that neither title nor the right to possession was clear.

Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 relied on the 2019 decree and subsequent transactions, but the decree’s execution had failed, their statutory ownership claim had been dismissed, their claim of possession had not been accepted in the injunction proceedings, and the Gram Panchayat independently asserted that the land was shamlat deh.

The SDM had recorded that both sides claimed possession, that there was continuing tension, and that the circumstances created a likelihood of conflict and disturbance of peace.

Although the existence of pending civil and revenue proceedings was relevant, it did not automatically bar preventive proceedings; rather, the immediate question before the SDM was to prevent violence and preserve the property pending authoritative determination of title and possession.

Since the competing claims, unclear nature of the land, standing crop and ongoing litigation made it unsafe to recognise either party’s possession, attachment and appointment of the Tehsildar as receiver were considered a practical and legally permissible course.

The Court also held that harvesting and depositing the crop proceeds protected the property from deterioration and preserved its benefits pending adjudication.

The concurrent order of the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld, and the petition under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as devoid of merit; the interim arrangements concerning supervision of the land, harvesting of crops and deposit of proceeds consequently remained operative.

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.