Conversion of BNSS Section 163 proceedings to Section 164 is a revisable order, barring writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner entered into a 20-year lease agreement for 4.4 acres of land to conduct fishery business, claiming the lessor held the property via a 50-year-old partition

Respondent No. 6 (a co-sharer) initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), leading the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Daudnagar, to issue a prohibitory order on 18.07.2025

On 10.09.2025, finding a title dispute and potential breach of peace, the SDM converted the case into a proceeding under Section 164 BNSS

The petitioner challenged this conversion and the restraint on his livelihood via a writ petition, alleging procedural fraud and seeking compensation

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an order converting a proceeding from Section 163 BNSS to Section 164 BNSS when an alternative remedy exists.

2. Whether the prohibitory order passed under Section 163 BNSS remains valid after the statutory period of two months.

The court applied Section 397 of the CrPC (equivalent to Section 438 BNSS), which grants High Courts or Sessions Judges revisional powers over orders passed by inferior criminal courts, including Executive Magistrates

It also applied Section 163(4) of the BNSS, which stipulates that an emergent order issued under that section cannot remain in force for more than two months from its inception

The court further noted the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when an "alternative and equally efficacious remedy" is available

The court reasoned that the SDM’s order dated 10.09.2025, which converted the summary proceeding (Section 163) into a more detailed inquiry into possession (Section 164), is a final order regarding that stage of the process and is therefore subject to criminal revision

Consequently, the petitioner should have approached the Sessions Court or the High Court's revisional side rather than invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226

Regarding the petitioner's fear of continued restraint, the court analyzed the timeline and held that the prohibitory order dated 18.07.2025 had naturally expired by operation of law after two months

The court observed that the pending Section 164 proceeding is the appropriate forum for parties to establish their claims to possession

The court clarified that the prohibitory order dated 18.07.2025 is no longer in effect as per Section 163(4) BNSS, meaning there is currently no legal bar preventing the petitioner from accessing the land

The SDM was directed to expedite and conclude the pending Section 164 BNSS proceeding