Possession relief under Section 528 BNSS is premature while proceedings under Sections 164/165 remain pending before the SDM.

The applicant sought, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), restoration of possession of land purchased by registered sale deed and an order restraining the private respondents from interfering with his possession

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Haridwar, had initiated proceedings under Sections 164/165 BNSS on police reports and issued notice to the parties to produce documents concerning actual possession

The applicant alleged that, while those proceedings remained pending, the private respondents entered the property and began new construction; he sought immediate restoration of possession

The SDM and SHO informed the Court, following a spot inspection, that there was no recent encroachment or new construction, and that the premises had been sealed, with temporary custody given to the SHO

The SDM’s determination of actual possession remained pending

Whether the High Court could direct restoration of possession while proceedings to determine actual possession remained pending before the SDM

Whether the applicant could obtain, under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, an order restraining the private respondents from interfering with his possession

Whether interim measures were required to preserve peace pending the SDM’s decision

Section 528 BNSS was invoked as the source of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, but the Court held that the requested restraint against interference with possession could not be granted in that jurisdiction and that the applicant should pursue an appropriate remedy by filing a regular suit

Under Sections 164/165 BNSS, the SDM was seized of the dispute and was required to determine actual possession through the pending proceedings; while that determination remained outstanding, parallel relief from the High Court was premature

The Court declined to order possession restored because the SDM had not yet determined who was in actual possession, making that relief premature

It also declined to grant the requested restraint under Section 528 BNSS, directing the applicant instead to the remedy of a regular suit

The Court did not accept the allegation of recent encroachment as a basis for immediate relief: the SDM and SHO reported that the alleged fresh encroachment and construction were not occurring

To maintain public peace while the statutory proceedings continued, the Court ordered the premises to remain sealed and in the SHO’s custody

It directed the SDM to expedite the proceedings, afford both parties a fair hearing, consider their documents, and pass a reasoned final order in accordance with law on the date fixed or within three weeks of production of a certified copy of the order

Until that decision, the premises were to remain sealed and in the SHO’s custody

The applicant’s request for restoration of possession and a restraint against interference was not granted