Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter X: Maintenance of Public Order and Tranquillity · D.–Disputes as to immovable property
Section 145: Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
When an Executive Magistrate is satisfied that a dispute over land or water (including buildings, markets, fisheries, crops and rents) is likely to cause a breach of the peace, they must make a written order requiring the parties to appear and file written statements about who is in actual possession.
- Without deciding who has the right to possess, the Magistrate hears the parties and evidence and decides who was in possession on the date of the order.
- A party forcibly and wrongfully dispossessed within two months before the report, or after it, can be treated as being in possession and restored.
- The party found in possession is declared entitled to keep it until evicted by due process of law, and all disturbance is forbidden.
- Proceedings can be dropped if it is shown no such dispute exists, and perishable crops can be sold or kept safe.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(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 pleader, on a specified 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 Code for the service of a 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 then, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, persue 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, 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 107.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 145
-
Binod Pathak & Ors. v. Shankar Choudhary & Ors.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court that as some of the defendants before the first appellate court had passed away and their legal heirs were not brought on record in accordance…
-
Yerikala Sunkalamma & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Revenue & Ors.
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellants were held to be the lawful owners of the ‘Patta Land’.
-
Indian Evangelical Lutheran Church Trust Association v. Sri Bala & Co.
Whether the plaint in the subsequent suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No. 49/2007, is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the…
-
Devendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the conviction would fall for the offence punishable u/s.302 IPC or under a lesser offence.
- Bajrang Prasad (Deceased) Thr Lrs & Anr v. Ram Niwas
- Nageena Arora v. State & Anr
- Sudhir Kumar v. State Govt. NCT of Delhi
- Saurabh Kumar v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- Punit Kumar v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi
- Mahinder Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Vinod Ratra v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors
-
Brij Narayan Shukla (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Sudesh Kumar Alias
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for the relief of injunction with alternative relief for possession on the ground of limitation as the respondent perfected their rights…
- Mr. Ravinder Sharma v. Rupender Singh Walia and Ors
- Rajesh Jindal v. Sanjay Khurana
- Smt Satula Devi v. Mr Rajeev Sharma & Ors
- Manik Majumder and Others v. Dipak Kumar Saha
- Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. S. P. Velayutham & Ors
- Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
- V. Kalyanaswamy (D) by Lrs. & Anr. v. L. Bakthavatsalam (D) by Lrs. & Ors.
- Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor & Ors.
- Basheera Begam v. Mohammed Ibrahim & Ors.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. B. Ranga Reddy (D) by Lrs & Ors.
- Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Thr. Lrs.& Another v. Shivnath & Others
- Roshina T v. Abdul Azeez K.T. & Ors.
- Ghewarchand & Ors. v. M/S Mahendra Singh & Ors.
- Selvi v. Gopalakrishnan Nair (D) Thr. Lrs. and Ors.
- Life Insurance Corporation of v. Nandini J. Shah & Ors
- Surinder Pal Kaur and Another v. Satpal and Another
- Rasheeda Khatoon (D) Through Lrs. v. Ashiq Ali S/O Lt. Abu Mohd (D) Through Lrs.
- Srihari (Dead) Through Lr. Smt. Ch. Niveditha Reddy v. Syed Maqdoom Shah & Ors.
- Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and Others
- The State of A.P. & Ors. v. M/S. Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Co.
- Ashok Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
- Ram Mehar Singh v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and Ors.
- Abid v. State of U. P.
- M.P. Peter v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- Devendra &Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.
- Bharat Prasad & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
- State of U.P. v. Sukhpal Singh & Others
- Shakunt Ala Devi & Ors. v. Chamru Mahto & Anr.
- Jharu Ram Roy v. Ramjit Roy and Ors.
- Bihari Rai v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
- P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana@ Hari Babu
- Shreedhar Govind Kamerkar v. Yesahwant Govind Kamerkar and Anr.
- Bishna@ Bhiswadeb Mahato and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan (Dead)
- Amerandra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati and Ors.
- Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao (D) Thr. Lrs. and Anr.
- Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (Dead) by Lrs. and Anr. v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal and Ors.
- Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani
- Bondar Singh and Ors. v. Nihal Singh and Ors.
- Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand
- Ram Khilona and Ors. v. Sardar and Ors.
- Madhegowda (D) by Lrs. v. Ankegowda (D) Lrs. and Ors.
- U.P Shia Central Board of W Akf and Ors. v. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Wakf and Ors.
- Mary Angel and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Sree Jain Setambar Terapanthi Vid (S) v. Phundan Singh and Ors.
- Ram Badan Rai and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.
- Deonarayan Singh and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Bhagalpur and Ors.
- Baleshwar Tewari (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. v. Sheo Jatan Tiwary and Ors.
- Beharilal and Anr. v. Smt. Bhuri Devi and Ors.
- Samsuddin Rahman and Ors. v. Bihari Das and Ors.
- C.V. Raja Rao and Anr. v. Mirza Basheer Baig and Ors
- Sri Lakhi Baruah and Others v. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita and Others
- Puttu Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. State of U.P. and Anr.
- Sh. P.K. Sarin and Anr. Etc. Etc v. State of U.Pand Ors Etc.
- Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui Etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Badri Prakash Soni v. Prahalad Soni and Ors.
- State of U.P. v. Mata Bhikh and Ors.
- Prakash Chand Sachdeva v. State and Another
- Ravi Raman Prasad and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Others
- Dharampal and Ors . v. Smt. Ramshri and Ors.
- Thota Sesharathamma and Anr. v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors.
- Jhummamal Alias Devandas v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
- Ram Nath and Others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others
- Asharfi Lal & Sons v. State of U.P.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalloo & Others.
- Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari Sarkar & Ors.
- Jai Singh v. Sarwan Singh & Others
- Bhaiya Ramanuj Pratap Deo v. Lalu Maheshanuj Pratap Deo & Ors. and Vice-Versa
- Kshitish Chandra Bose v. Commissioner of Ranchi
- Rajpati v. Bachan & Anr.
- Mathuralal v. Bhanwarlal & Anr.
- Gayaram Patel & Ors. v. Kailash Chand P Anigrahi
- Chandrasekhar Singh & Ors. v. Siya Ram Singh & Ors.
- Chandu Naik & Ors. v. Sita Ram B. Naik & Anr.
- Chhotan Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Hari Dusadh & Ors.
- Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifs (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
- Bechan Pandey & Ors. v. Dulhin Janki Devi & Others
- Gurucharan Singh v. Kamla Singh & Ors.