Pakur Land Dispute: Jharkhand HC Restores SDM’s BNSS 163-to-164 Switch Without Prior Hearing, Requiring Full Section 164 Process Thereafter

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pakur, initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) concerning a land dispute.

On the 59th day, finding that the proceedings could not be concluded within the prescribed two-month period and that apprehension of breach of peace persisted, the Magistrate converted them into proceedings under Section 164 BNSS.

The Additional Sessions Judge set aside that order because the parties had not been heard before conversion. Guru Hembrom challenged the revisional order under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 164 BNSS empowers an Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings concerning a dispute over immovable property where there is an apprehension of breach of peace; a prior hearing is not required before initiating such proceedings.

Once proceedings are initiated, however, the Magistrate must follow Section 164’s procedure, including giving the parties an opportunity to submit written statements of their respective claims concerning actual possession.

Relying on Padma Charan Behera & Others v. Prafulla Chandra Naik & Others, the Court accepted the principle that where proceedings under Section 144 CrPC were initiated in circumstances warranting proceedings under Section 145 CrPC, the date of initiation under Section 144 could be treated as the date of the preliminary order under Section 145.

The Court applied that principle to the corresponding BNSS provisions.

The Magistrate’s order recorded that an apprehension of breach of peace concerning the land dispute persisted, and that the Section 163 proceedings could not be concluded within the two-month period.

Because the essential basis for Section 164 proceedings was present, the Court held that a hearing was not required merely to convert the proceedings.

The parties’ opportunity to state their claims remained protected: after conversion, the Magistrate was required to proceed under Section 164 as in a newly initiated proceeding and afford the parties the prescribed opportunity to present their claims regarding actual possession.

The revisional court therefore erred in setting aside the conversion order solely for lack of a prior hearing.

It quashed and set aside the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dated 25 March 2026 and allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition to that extent, while requiring the Magistrate to follow the procedure under Section 164 BNSS after conversion.