CRMP/1850/2026 of NANHUBAI SAHU Vs IDURAM SAHU on 9 September 2026

1. Petitioner has filed this petition U/s. 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 questioning the legality and sustainability of BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

the order dated 29.04.2026, passed in Criminal Revision No.38 of 2025, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh has allowed the criminal revision filed against the preliminary/interim order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh on an application filed U/s. 164 and 165 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (In short “BNSS”).

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed an application U/s. 164 and 165 of BNSS before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh alleging that land in dispute bearing Khasra Nos. 73/1, 78/1, and 78/2, situated at Village Ranpagula, Tahsil Sarangarh, District Bilaigarh originally belonged to late Bundri Bai, who had three daughters, namely, Savitri Bai, Bisahin, and Nanhubai, the petitioner herein. During lifetime of Bundri Bai, the agricultural holdings were partitioned amongst her three daughters, and the lands in dispute bearing Khasra Nos. 73/1, 78/1, and 78/2 were allotted to petitioner. It was further alleged that owing to an erroneous and fraudulent revenue entry, names of respondents No. 1 to 6 were subsequently recorded in respect of the aforesaid lands bearing Khasra Nos. 73/1, 78/1, and 78/2, despite the fact that petitioner remained in settled possession thereof and has been cultivating the said lands for several decades. It is further pleaded that upon respondents Nos. 1 to 6 attempting to interfere with his possession and harvest the standing crops unlawfully over the land in question, petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sarangarh, under Sections 164 and 165 of the BNSS for preventive action. On application filed by petitioner, Magistrate called for a report. After considering the report and finding that there was a likelihood of breach of peace, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed a preliminary order directing attachment of standing crop and entrusting its custody to a neutral person until further orders, which was put to challenge before the revisional Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, Bilaigarh. Revisional Court set aside the preliminary order of the Magistrate, observing that it was passed without giving a proper opportunity of hearing to non-applicants/respondents. The Court further directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving the parties a proper opportunity of hearing and to present their claims regarding possession of the disputed land.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is illegal and contrary to law. He submits that the learned Revisional Court has erred both in law and on facts in allowing the revision and setting aside the well- reasoned order dated 19.11.2025, without properly appreciating the scope and object of the proceedings under Sections 164 and 165 of the BNSS. He further submits that, while passing the preliminary order, the learned Magistrate had recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the report submitted by the authorities that dispute between the parties was likely to cause a breach of peace. It is therefore submitted that learned Magistrate had rightly exercised his jurisdiction to protect and preserve the standing crop. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate that dispute relates to possession of standing crop during harvesting season, and any delay in passing preventive orders would have rendered the entire proceedings infructuous. He further submits that attachment of standing crop was only an interim preventive measure and did not confer any right, title, or permanent possession upon petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned order. He submits that the preliminary order was passed by the learned Magistrate without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the non-applicants/respondents, who are in possession of the disputed land. He further submits that the learned revisional Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction in setting aside the preliminary order and directing the learned Magistrate to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties, which does not call for any interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

6. Perusal of record would show that petitioner filed an application under Sections 164 and 165 of the BNSS before learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, seeking attachment of standing crop over disputed land and for handing over its custody to a neutral person of the village. On receipt of the said application, learned Magistrate initiated the proceedings and called for a report from the concerned revenue authorities regarding possession of parties and likelihood of breach of peace. Pursuant to direction of learned Magistrate, a report was submitted and after considering the report that there was a likelihood of breach of peace between the parties, passed a preliminary order directing attachment of the standing crop and entrusting its custody to a neutral person.

7. The learned revisional Court, while setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, found that the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate had issued notice to the non-applicants and had also called for a report from the concerned Halka Patwari regarding the person who was in possession of the disputed land two months prior to the filing of application. A report was also called for from the Station House Officer, Sarangarh, regarding likelihood of breach of peace over the disputed land. It was also observed that as per order-sheet dated 29.10.2025 of the learned Magistrate, non-applicants had entered appearance and copy of application was also supplied to them. The matter was thereafter fixed for hearing on 14.11.2025. However, on an urgent application filed by the petitioner on 07.11.2025, the learned Magistrate took up the matter and directed that the harvesting of the crop over the disputed land be stayed. Thereafter, on 19.11.2025, the learned Magistrate passed the preliminary order directing attachment of the standing crop without affording any opportunity of hearing to the non-applicants/respondents though the notice was issued to them.

8. Considering that learned revisional Court has only directed learned Magistrate to adjudicate and decide the subject matter of dispute, after affording them proper, adequate, and reasonable opportunity of hearing, I find that no prejudice has been caused to any of the parties by order passed by the learned Revisional Court. Further considering that application preferred by petitioner is yet to be adjudicated on its merits by learned Magistrate and learned revisional Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the case I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the revisional Court.

9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to comply with the directions of the learned revisional Court, if not already complied with expeditiously, and proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram