What provisions have been made in Cr.P.C. regarding the dispute in respect of land or water?

Question: What provisions have been made in Cr.P.C. regarding the dispute in respect of land or water? [UPCJ. 2018]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites.[What provisions have been made in Cr.P.C. regarding the dispute in respect of land or water?]

Answer

In a civilized society, the disputes relating to property shall be settled by taking recourse to the law and not by the individuals among themselves by taking the law into their hands. Section 145 is a step in aid to avoid lawlessness amongst the people and resolving the disputes related to the property by taking a prompt initiative if the Executive Magistrate is satisfied that the dispute relating to that property may cause a breach of peace.

The underlying objective is to maintain public order and tranquillity. Land and water being immovable property, the disputes relating to them are governed under Section 145 in which the procedure to be followed when there is a likelihood of breach and peace, Section 146 where the immovable property may be attached and a receiver may be appointed and Section 147.

Section 145 As per this Section, the EM can come to a conclusion as to the possession of the immovable property. He does not decide that who has the right over the property either possession-wise or ownership right wise but EM decides who is in the possession during that particular point in time. If EM is unable to satisfy himself regarding the possession then he/she may attach the property as per Section 146.

Under 145 a preliminary decree is passed.

It can be culled out that EM can pass a preliminary order upon recording his satisfaction that a dispute may likely cause a breach of peace, so to avoid that a preliminary order is passed. Due importance has been paid to the jurisprudential concept of possession that possession is nine points of law.

Under Section 145 the only thing is decided by EM is who was in the actual possession of the immovable property as on the date of the order passed by him. Here the proceedings are done to take cognizance of the dispute and to settle the same by holding an inquiry into the possession which is different from deciding which party has the right to possession or right to the title. It was held in the case of Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi (2004) 1 SCC 438 that The proceedings under Section 145 and 146 are quasi civil, quasi-criminal in nature, or an executive on police action.

The purpose is to provide a speedy and summary remedy. A restriction is put upon the EM that his Preliminary Order will maintain the status quo as to the possession until the entitlement of the possession is determined by a competent Court. Therefore the EM does not decide upon the claim of right to possession or right to the title. So EM decides over the possession simpliciter and he will take the cognizance only when there is a likelihood of breach of the peace at the time of passing the preliminary order.

Under SubSection 4 to Section 145, the EM decides as who was in the possession of the property on the date of passing of the preliminary order and such person in whose favor the preliminary order is passed cannot be evicted except by the due course of law. i.e the preliminary order passed under 145 bars anyone from evicting the possession holder as decided by the EM not to be taken out forcefully

An order passed under section 145 is admissible in evidence to show that

• There was an Existence of a dispute regarding that particular property,
• the dispute was between particular parties,
• it led to the passing of a Preliminary Order,
• that the ‘ Magistrate found one of the parties to be in possession or fictional possession of the disputed property on the date of the preliminary order. The reasoning recorded by the Magistrate or other findings arrived at by him have no relevance and are not admissible in evidence before the competent court and the competent court is not bound by the findings arrived at by the Magistrate even on the question of possession though, as, between the parties, the order of the Magistrate would be evidence of possession. The finding recorded by the Magistrate does not bind the Court.’

Therefore the competent court may arise at a decision that is inconsistent with the decision passed by the EM and the Competent court is not bound by the order of EM passed under Section 145 and section 146.

---

Important Mains/Long Questions for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questio
10. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions
11. CRPC Mains Questions Series Part XI: Important Questions