Chapter X
Section 147 CrPC: Dispute concerning right of use of land or water
New Law Update (2024)
Section 139 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction, whether such right be claimed as an easement or otherwise, 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 pleader on a specified date and time and to put in written statements of their respective claims.
(2) The Magistrate shall then peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary and, if possible, decide whether such right exists; and the provisions of Section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of such inquiry.
(3) If it appears to such Magistrate that such right exists, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right, including, in a proper case, an order for the removal of any obstruction in the exercise of any such right; Provided that no such order shall be made where the right is exercisable at all times of the year, unless such right has been exercised within three months next before the receipt under Sub-Section (1) of the report of a police officer or other information leading to the institution of the inquiry, or where the right is exercisable only at particular seasons or on particular occasions, unless the right has been exercised during the last of such seasons or on the last of such occasions before such receipt.
(4) When in any proceedings commenced under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145 the Magistrate finds that the dispute is as regards an alleged right to user of land or water, he may, after recording his reasons, continue with the proceedings as if they had been commenced under Sub-Section (1); and when in any proceedings commenced under Sub-Section (1) the Magistrate finds that the dispute should be dealt with under Section 145, he may, after recording his reasons, continue with the proceedings as if they had been commenced under Sub-Section (1) of Section 145.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 147(1)
This sub-section outlines how an Executive Magistrate initiates an inquiry into disputes concerning the right to use land or water that are likely to cause public disturbance, requiring all involved parties to present their claims in writing.
Section 147(3)
This crucial sub-section empowers the Magistrate, after finding that a right of use exists, to issue an order preventing any interference with that right, including the removal of obstructions, subject to conditions regarding the prior exercise of the right.
Landmark Judgements
Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. (1985):
The Supreme Court held that when a civil suit involving title and possession over the same property is pending between the parties, proceedings under Sections 145 or 147 of the CrPC should not be allowed to continue. The criminal court should refrain from exercising jurisdiction to avoid parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, directing parties to seek relief from the civil court.
Madan Singh v. Executive Magistrate (1979):
The Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified that Section 147 CrPC is intended to prevent a breach of peace arising from disputes over the right of use of land or water. It emphasized that the Magistrate’s role is not to decide title but to ascertain whether such a right exists and has been exercised, and then to pass a prohibitory order to maintain public order.