Dispute concerning right of use of land or water
Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with dispute concerning right of use of land or water. 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 easemen The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(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 an advocate on a specified date and time and to put in written statements of their respective claims.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "land or water" has the meaning given to it in sub-section (2) of section 164.
(2) The Magistrate shall 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 164 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of such inquiry.
(3) If it appears to such Magistrate that such rights exist, 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 164 the Magistrate finds that the dispute is as regards an alleged right of 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 164, he may, after recording his reasons, continue with the proceedings as if they had been commenced under sub-section (1) of section 164.
Section 166, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 147 Dispute concerning right of use of land or water Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Balasubramaniyan vs Kalyanasundaram
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a cheque is issued and subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds, and a legal notice is issued to the drawer, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invoked in favour of the complainant. The burden then shifts to the defence to rebut this presumption through credible oral or documentary evidence. If the defence fails to appear as a witness or fails to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption, the conviction under Section 138 NI Act is sustainable and should be upheld on appeal.
On this section: The court noted that the respondent/complainant failed to file a petition under Section 147 CrPC for withdrawal or compounding of the offence, despite allegedly receiving the cheque amount from the appellant.
-
Hare Ram Yadav vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a writ petition challenges administrative action involving disputed factual matters regarding the nature of construction (whether a house or temporary encroachment) and the validity of demolition despite a stay order, and when the underlying matter is pending in Criminal Revision proceedings before a subordinate court, the High Court should remit the matter to the appropriate subordinate court for expeditious adjudication rather than deciding the factual disputes at the writ stage, ensuring that the subordinate court provides due notice to all parties and decides the matter within a reasonable timeframe.
On this section: Section 147 CrPC provides for removal of encroachments. The Executive Magistrate issued an order under this section directing removal of encroachment on the disputed land. The court proceedings under this section were stayed, but the Sub Divisional Magistrate allegedly proceeded with demolition despite the stay.
-
Vijay Kumar Rathore vs Dayashankar Rathore
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 147, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings under Section 147 of CrPC, when there is a registered sale deed in favor of the respondent establishing legal ownership of the land, the application of a person claiming possession based on a settlement agreement (Rajinama) or continuous possession becomes unmaintainable. The registered ownership, as evidenced by the revenue records and registered sale deed, takes precedence over claimed possession in determining the maintainability of such applications. The pendency of civil litigation regarding the same land does not alter this principle in criminal proceedings.
On this section: The primary statute under which the petitioner filed the application seeking to prevent respondents from harvesting crops. The court held that Section 147 CrPC requires the applicant to establish possession, but when there is a registered sale deed in favor of the respondent, the application becomes unmaintainable. The court applied the principle that registered ownership takes precedence over claimed possession in criminal proceedings under Section 147.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 166
What have the courts held on Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
Balasubramaniyan vs Kalyanasundaram (06 Jan 2023) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 147, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: The court noted that the respondent/complainant failed to file a petition under Section 147 CrPC for withdrawal or compounding of the offence, despite allegedly receiving the cheque amount from the appellant. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2013 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 166, section 166 BNSS, section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 166 in crpc and bnss 166a. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Balasubramaniyan vs Kalyanasundaram (06 Jan 2023).
What should I read with Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 164 (Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. It carries forward CrPC 147 (Dispute concerning right of use of land or water), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 166 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 166, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.