A magistrate's order under this section decides who legally owns the disputed land.

It only decides who was in actual possession at a certain point in time, to stop violence; ownership must be settled separately in a civil court.

Once this process starts, no civil court case about the same land can proceed.

Civil courts can still hear and decide ownership or possession suits; in fact, courts have said this magistrate process should usually yield once a competent civil court is already handling the dispute.

This section can be used for any property dispute.

It applies specifically when a dispute over land, water, or related produce/rents is likely to cause a breach of the peace — not for routine or peaceful property disagreements.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 164

Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of

(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by an advocate on aspecified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute.§

(2) For the purposes of this section, the expression “land or water” includes buildings, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of land, and the rents or profits of any such property.§

(3) A copy of the order shall be served in the manner provided by this Sanhita for the service of summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may direct, and at least one copy shall be published by being affixed to some conspicuous place at or near the subject of dispute.§

(4) The Magistrate shall, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary, and, if possible, decide whether any and which of the parties was, at the date of the order made by him under sub-section (1), in possession of the subject of dispute: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that any party has been forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months next before the date on which the report of a police officer or other information was received by the Magistrate, or after that date and before the date of his order under sub-section (1), he may treat the party so dispossessed as if that party had been in possession on the date of his order under sub-section (1).§

(5) Nothing in this section shall preclude any party so required to attend, or any other person interested, from showing that no such dispute as aforesaid exists or has existed; and in such case the Magistrate shall cancel his said order, and all further proceedings thereon shall be stayed, but, subject to such cancellation, the order of the Magistrate under sub-section (1) shall be final.§

(6) (a) If the Magistrate decides that one of the parties was, or should under the proviso to sub-section (4) be treated as being, in such possession of the said subject of dispute, he shall issue an order declaring such party to be entitled to possession thereof until evicted therefrom in due course of law, and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction; and when he proceeds under the proviso to sub-section (4), may restore to possession the party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed;§

(b) the order made under this sub-section shall be served and published in the manner laid down in sub- section (3).§

(7) When any party to any such proceeding dies, the Magistrate may cause the legal representative of the deceased party to be made a party to the proceeding and shall thereupon continue the inquiry, and if any question arises as to who the legal representative of a deceased party for the purposes of such proceeding is, all persons claiming to be representatives of the deceased party shall be made parties thereto.§

(8) If the Magistrate is of opinion that any crop or other produce of the property, the subject of dispute in a proceeding under this section pending before him, is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may make an order for the proper custody or sale of such property, and, upon the completion of the inquiry, shall make such order for the disposal of such property, or the sale-proceeds thereof, as he thinks fit.§

(9) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under this section, on the application of either party, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing.§

(10) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to be in derogation of powers of the Magistrate to proceed under section 126.§

Why this exists

Disputes over land and water — especially in rural India — have long been a leading cause of sudden violence, sometimes escalating into feuds or riots. Ordinary civil courts take years to settle ownership, but violence can erupt within days. Colonial-era lawmakers (originally under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, later carried into Section 145 of the CrPC, 1973, and now reborn as Section 164 of the BNSS, 2023) created this emergency, criminal-side procedure so a magistrate can quickly restore order by protecting whoever is actually in physical possession, while leaving the deeper question of legal ownership to be fought out later in a civil court.

How courts read it

Courts have repeatedly stressed that this provision is only about maintaining public peace by protecting actual possession, and is never a substitute for a civil suit on title. In cases like Bhinka v. Charan Singh and State of U.P. v. Ram Sumer Puri Mahant, the Supreme Court held that findings on possession made under this kind of provision have no bearing on ownership rights, which must be decided by a civil court. Courts have also cautioned magistrates against invoking this power to preempt or bypass pending civil litigation over the same property (as flagged in cases like Amresh Tiwari v. Lalta Prasad Dubey), and have held that once a competent civil court is seized of the title/possession dispute, parallel criminal proceedings of this kind should ordinarily give way.

Common misconceptions

Myth: A magistrate's order under this section decides who legally owns the disputed land.
Fact: It only decides who was in actual possession at a certain point in time, to stop violence; ownership must be settled separately in a civil court.
Myth: Once this process starts, no civil court case about the same land can proceed.
Fact: Civil courts can still hear and decide ownership or possession suits; in fact, courts have said this magistrate process should usually yield once a competent civil court is already handling the dispute.
Myth: This section can be used for any property dispute.
Fact: It applies specifically when a dispute over land, water, or related produce/rents is likely to cause a breach of the peace — not for routine or peaceful property disagreements.