Rival Claims Over Title and Possession Coupled With Threat of Conflict Justify Attachment of Land Under Section 164 BNSS: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: Mahender Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 26 August 2026
Citation:CRM-M-27970-2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that attachment of disputed land and appointment of a receiver under Sections 164 and 165 BNSS may be justified where neither title nor possession is clear, rival parties assert competing possession over the property, and the dispute creates a real possibility of conflict and breach of peace. Although proceedings analogous to Section 145 Cr.P.C. should ordinarily not be initiated where ownership and the right to possession are already under adjudication before a competent civil or revenue court, there is no absolute bar against preventive action in every case involving pending civil litigation. In the peculiar circumstances, where both sides sought to cultivate and harvest crops despite the absence of any conclusive determination of title or possession, the SDM had adopted a practical and legally sustainable course by attaching the land and placing it under neutral supervision.
Summary: The dispute concerned land measuring 69 Kanals and 7 Marlas situated in Village Joshi, District Panipat. Respondents No. 6 and 7 relied upon a compromise decree dated 4 September 2019, an agreement to sell and a subsequent sale deed to assert rights over the land. However, the revenue authorities declined mutation on the ground that the land was recorded as shamlat deh. Their execution petition was also dismissed after the executing court concluded that the civil court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. A petition filed by them under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, seeking a declaration of ownership, had likewise been dismissed. Meanwhile, the Gram Panchayat challenged the compromise decree and claimed ownership of the land as village common land. Following complaints and allegations of threats and obstruction in cultivation, proceedings under Section 164 BNSS were initiated. The SDM, Israna attached the disputed land, appointed the Tehsildar, Madlauda as Superdar, and directed that the standing crop be harvested under official and police supervision, with the proceeds deposited in the Government treasury. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld this order. Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that preventive proceedings could not continue when disputes concerning title and possession were already pending before civil and revenue forums. The Court acknowledged that where ownership and the right to possession are directly disputed, proceedings under Section 164 BNSS should ordinarily not be initiated. However, it found that no party had established clear title or possession, while competing attempts to cultivate and harvest the land posed a genuine threat to public peace. The attachment preserved the property without determining the substantive rights of any party and ensured that the land did not remain uncultivated.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the orders of the SDM, Israna and the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat. It found no illegality in attaching the disputed land, appointing the Tehsildar as receiver, harvesting the standing crop under official supervision and leasing the land to prevent it from becoming barren. The Court also declined interference under Section 528 BNSS since such intervention, after dismissal of the statutory revision, could effectively amount to entertaining a second revision.