Anyone can just claim 'this isn't public land' to stop the magistrate's order forever.

The claim only pauses the case if the magistrate finds reliable evidence supporting it; a bare, unsupported denial does not stop enforcement.

The magistrate personally decides who owns the disputed land.

The magistrate only checks whether there's credible evidence of a genuine dispute; the actual question of ownership or public right is meant to be decided by a competent civil court.

A person can deny the public right at any stage of the case, even later, if they missed their chance earlier.

Under sub-section (3), if someone fails to deny the right when first asked, or denies it but can't back it up with evidence, they cannot raise that denial again later in the same proceedings.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 156

Procedure where existence of public right is denied

(1) Where an order is made under section 152 for the purpose of preventing obstruction, nuisance or danger to the public in the use of any way, river, channel or place, the Magistrate shall, on the appearance before him of the person against whom the order was made, question him as to whether he denies the existence of any public right in respect of the way, river, channel or place, and if he does so, the Magistrate shall, before proceeding under section 157, inquire into the matter.§

(2) If in such inquiry the Magistrate finds that there is any reliable evidence in support of such denial, he shall stay the proceedings until the matter of the existence of such right has been decided by a competent Court; and, if he finds that there is no such evidence, he shall proceed as laid down in section 157.§

(3) A person who has, on being questioned by the Magistrate under sub-section (1), failed to deny the existence of a public right of the nature therein referred to, or who, having made such denial, has failed to adduce reliable evidence in support thereof, shall not in the subsequent proceedings be permitted to make any such denial.§

Why this exists

This provision continues a long-standing safeguard (earlier found in the Code of Criminal Procedure) built into India's summary process for stopping public nuisances. Magistrates can order quick action to protect roads, rivers, and public places from obstruction, but such quick orders risk trampling on genuine private property or customary rights. The law balances speed with fairness: it lets the magistrate act fast against nuisances, while ensuring that if someone seriously and credibly disputes that the public even has a right to the place, that deeper legal question is sent to a civil court — the proper forum to decide title and rights — rather than being resolved hastily in a criminal proceeding.

How courts read it

Under the earlier, similarly worded provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, courts consistently held that the magistrate's inquiry at this stage is limited and preliminary — it only checks whether there is 'reliable evidence' of a genuine dispute, not a full trial of title. Courts have emphasized that magistrates should not conduct an elaborate civil-style trial themselves; once credible evidence of a bona fide dispute appears, the sensible course is to stay the criminal proceedings and let a civil court settle the underlying right, keeping the criminal process focused on urgent public-safety concerns rather than complex property questions.

Common misconceptions

Myth: Anyone can just claim 'this isn't public land' to stop the magistrate's order forever.
Fact: The claim only pauses the case if the magistrate finds reliable evidence supporting it; a bare, unsupported denial does not stop enforcement.
Myth: The magistrate personally decides who owns the disputed land.
Fact: The magistrate only checks whether there's credible evidence of a genuine dispute; the actual question of ownership or public right is meant to be decided by a competent civil court.
Myth: A person can deny the public right at any stage of the case, even later, if they missed their chance earlier.
Fact: Under sub-section (3), if someone fails to deny the right when first asked, or denies it but can't back it up with evidence, they cannot raise that denial again later in the same proceedings.