Section 528 BNSS Cannot Be Invoked as a ‘Disguised Second Revision’ to Reopen Disputed Questions of Possession, Title and Lease Rights After Revisional Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Rampal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2026
Citation: CRM-M-56291-2024
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumeet Goel.
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that although the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is expansive in character, it is required to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of Court or secure the ends of justice.
The threshold for interference becomes considerably narrower where the order under challenge has already undergone scrutiny before the Court of Sessions in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In such circumstances, permitting the High Court to undertake another examination of the merits under Section 528 BNSS would effectively convert the inherent jurisdiction into a “disguised second revision”, which is impermissible under the procedural framework. The Court held that a petitioner seeking such interference must therefore demonstrate an egregious failure of justice, patent illegality, manifest perversity or a glaring jurisdictional defect.
Summary: The petitioners approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 26 July 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissing their criminal revision against the order dated 4 January 2018 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal. The SDM had directed that possession of the disputed property be delivered through the receiver to Samadh Baba Nihal Gir through its alleged Mahant.
The dispute related to approximately 514 Kanal 6 Marla of land situated in Village Gohana, District Kaithal. The petitioners asserted rights over the property on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 6 June 1970 allegedly granting the land for 99 years, from 1971 to 2070. They relied upon mutation entries, Jamabandis, Khasra Girdawaris and subsequent revenue proceedings to contend that they and their predecessors had remained in possession of the property.
Proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. had earlier resulted in attachment of the disputed property and appointment of the Naib Tehsildar, Kaithal as receiver. That order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge on 11 December 2017 on the ground that the requisite satisfaction contemplated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. had not been recorded. Subsequently, however, on an application made by the private respondents, the SDM passed the order dated 4 January 2018 directing delivery of possession through the receiver to Samadh Baba Nihal Gir. The petitioners’ revision against that order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 26 July 2024.
Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that their long-standing possession was supported by the registered lease deed and revenue record and that the SDM could not have ordered delivery of possession to the private respondents through proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. They further relied upon the earlier revisional order dated 11 December 2017 to contend that the subsequent order directing possession was legally unsustainable.
The High Court rejected the attempt to reopen the dispute through Section 528 BNSS. Justice Sumeet Goel emphasised the distinction between a direct challenge to an original order and a challenge brought after the Court of Sessions has already exercised revisional jurisdiction. Once the correctness of an order has undergone revisional scrutiny, the scope for invoking inherent powers becomes “extraordinarily constricted”. A petition under Section 528 BNSS cannot be permitted to become a substitute for a prohibited second revision merely because the party seeks another examination of the factual or legal merits of the dispute.
The Court also attached significance to the fact that the dispute had not remained confined to revenue proceedings. The petitioners had approached the Civil Court in respect of their claimed rights over the same property; their civil suit was dismissed on 29 August 2015, the first appeal was dismissed on 10 January 2023 and a regular second appeal was stated to be pending before the High Court. Against that background, the Court held that the petitioners could not seek a complete re-adjudication of their respective rights and possession by resorting to Section 528 BNSS.
The Court further declined to treat either the earlier order dated 11 December 2017 or the registered lease deed as conclusive for determining possession in the proceedings before it. The revisional Court had considered subsequent developments, including the civil litigation and revenue record, before declining interference with the SDM’s order. The High Court found no basis to hold that the revisional Court had mechanically dismissed the revision or ignored material circumstances.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition as being devoid of merit. It held that the petitioners had failed to establish any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. Neither the order dated 4 January 2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaithal nor the order dated 26 July 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction was shown to suffer from patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity. The Court found that the petitioners were essentially seeking a fresh examination of the merits of the underlying property dispute, which was impermissible in proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.