Conditional order for removal of nuisance
Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with conditional order for removal of nuisance. Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers- (a) that a The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whenever a District Magistrate or a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this of behalf by the State Government, on receiving the report of a police officer or other information and on taking such evidence (if any) as he thinks fit, considers-
(a) that any unlawful obstruction or nuisance should be removed from any public place or from any way, river or channel which is or may be lawfully used by the public ; or
(b) that the conduct of any trade or occupation, or the keeping of any goods or merchandise, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community, and that in consequence such trade or occupation should be prohibited or regulated or such goods or merchandise should be removed or the keeping thereof regulated ; or
(c) that the construction of any building, or, the disposal of any substance, as is likely to occasion configuration or explosion, should be prevented or stopped ; or
(d) that any building, tent or structure, or any tree is in such a condition that it is likely to fall and thereby cause injury to persons living or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing by, and that in consequence the removal, repair or support of such building, tent or structure, or the removal or support of such tree, is necessary ; or
(e) that any tank, well or excavation adjacent to any such way or public place should be fenced in such manner as to prevent danger arising to the public ; or
(f) that any dangerous animal should be destroyed, confined or otherwise disposed of,
such Magistrate may make a conditional order requiring the person causing such obstruction or nuisance, or carrying on such trade or occupa-
tion, or keeping any such goods or merchandise, or owning, possessing or controlling such building, tent, structure, substance, tank, well or excavation, or owning or possessing such animal or tree, within a time to be fixed in the order-
(i) to remove such obstruction or nuisance ; or
(ii) to desist from carrying on, or to remove or regulate in such manner as may be directed, such trade or occupation, or to remove such goods or merchandise, or to regulate the keeping thereof in such manner as may be directed; or
(iii) to prevent or stop the construction of such building, or to alter the disposal of such substance ; or
(iv) to remove, repair or support such building, tent or structure, or to remove or support such trees ; or
(v) to fence such tank, well or excavation ; or
(vi) to destroy, confine or dispose of such dangerous animal in the manner provided in the said order;
or, if he objects so to do, to appear before himself or some other Executive Magistrate subordinate to him at a time and place to be fixed by the Order, and show cause, in the manner hereinafter provided, why the order should not be made absolute.
(2) No order duly made by a Magistrate under this section shall be called in question in any Civil Court.
Explanation-A "public place" includes also property belonging to the State, camping grounds and grounds left unoccupied for sanitary or recreative purposes.
Section 133, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 152 Conditional order for removal of nuisance 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.
-
Abdul Hamid v. State of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
HC Final Order order-3.pdf 2018-02-12 DATE VERIFIED. Sudhanshu Dhulia J. Crl Misc 342/2016. CrPC 133 is a public-nuisance power (Chapter X Part B); a landlord cannot use 133(1)(d) dilapidated-building jurisdiction to evict a tenant in a private dispute. Clause (d) protects persons in the neighbourhood or passing by, not persons living inside the building. Follows Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal. Map crpc 133 + BNSS 152 successor (near-identical 0.9906). Do not pad ipc 268.
On this section: CrPC 133 is only for public nuisance; a dilapidated tenanted house is not 133(1)(d) unless it threatens the neighbourhood or passers-by, and landlords cannot use it to evict a tenant (Abdul Hamid).
-
P.p.hamsa vs M.n.kunharamutty Haji
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under the scheme of Chapter XB Cr.P.C., an order under section 141 Cr.P.C. consequent on disobedience of a final order under section 138 Cr.P.C. can be passed only against the person against whom the final order under section 138 was passed. A tenant in actual possession of a building is a necessary party to proceedings under section 133 Cr.P.C., and no order can be effectively passed without giving notice to the occupant. Therefore, an order passed against a landlord cannot be enforced against a tenant by initiating section 141 proceedings unless a separate final order under section 138 has been passed in proceedings where the tenant was also a party.
On this section: Section 133(1)(d) Cr.P.C. provides for conditional orders to remove, repair or support buildings likely to fall and cause injury. The court analyzed that such orders can only be passed against persons owning, possessing or controlling the building.
-
Raju Pundhir @ Raju Singh Pundhir vs State of U.p.and Another
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order passed under Section 133 CrPC for removal of nuisance must be preceded by an opportunity to the affected person to appear and show cause under Section 135 CrPC, and the Executive Magistrate must follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 134-140 CrPC before passing a final order under Section 141 CrPC. Failure to provide such opportunity and follow the prescribed procedure renders the order violative of natural justice and liable to be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Power of Executive Magistrate to issue order for removal of nuisance
-
Damayanthi vs The State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Disputes pertaining to lateral support between adjoining properties do not fall within the purview of Section 133 Cr.P.C., and the appropriate remedy for such disputes lies in civil courts, not in criminal proceedings. Criminal procedure provisions cannot be invoked to resolve civil property disputes.
On this section: The court held that lateral support disputes do not fall within the scope of Section 133 Cr.P.C., which deals with removal of nuisances. The court clarified that Section 133 is not the appropriate provision for addressing property disputes related to lateral support.
-
Suresh Chand vs Zile Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
No final order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be passed without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 137 CrPC, except in emergency situations. The enquiry is a mandatory procedural safeguard to examine whether a genuine dispute exists and whether it constitutes a nuisance as defined in the Code.
On this section: Section 133 provides the magistrate with the power to issue orders to prevent or remove nuisances. The court examined whether this power can be exercised without following the procedural requirements of Section 137.
-
Life Group Developers vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C cannot be construed as a composite order under both Section 133 and Section 142 Cr.P.C. A formal order under Section 142 Cr.P.C is necessary and mandatory to direct the cessation of construction activities or other ongoing actions. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot achieve the result of Section 142 Cr.P.C by attempting to read such directions into a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C. An order directing police to stop construction without a formal order under Section 142 Cr.P.C is illegal and unjustified.
On this section: Conditional order for prevention of nuisance - The court examined whether a conditional order under this section can be construed as also containing directions under Section 142 Cr.P.C. The court found that Section 133 is for issuing conditional orders, not for directing cessation of activities.
-
Ramashish Pandit vs State of Bihar& ANR.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a party remains continuously absent from proceedings despite multiple hearings and opportunities to present their case, and the court passes an ex parte order in public interest for removal of encroachment from public land under Section 133 CrPC, the High Court will not interfere with such order in a petition for quashing, as the party has forfeited their right to be heard through their own conduct.
On this section: Section 133 CrPC provides authority to Sub-divisional Magistrates to pass orders for removal of encroachments on public land in public interest. The court applied this section to validate the Sub-divisional Officer's order directing removal of encroachment.
-
Ravi Kumar Sharda vs Narinder Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The District Magistrate has statutory authority under Section 23 Cr.P.C. to delegate complaint investigation to subordinate Executive Magistrates such as the SDM. The delegation of complaints regarding water obstruction and debris dumping to the SDM was valid. Complaints alleging obstruction of water flow in a rivulet and diversion of water toward residential properties constitute allegations of public nuisance and warrant investigation. The endorsement of a complaint by an elected representative (MLA) does not invalidate the allegations or suggest political motivation. A petitioner seeking to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot succeed merely by raising counter-allegations or suggesting political overtones when the complaints disclose a cognizable offense or public nuisance.
On this section: Procedure for District Magistrate to pass orders on complaints; petitioner argued DM should have passed orders directly, but court rejected this as Section 23 permits delegation
-
Ramdhan Gaud vs S.d.m. Tehsil Gola
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court has the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to issue directions to administrative authorities to conclude pending proceedings for removal of public nuisance within a specified timeframe when such proceedings have been unduly delayed, thereby ensuring the ends of justice and preventing abuse of process.
On this section: Final proceedings by S.D.M. for removal of public nuisance; the core statutory provision under which the underlying case was instituted and which the High Court directed to be concluded.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… 2024:KER:67521 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, J. ======================== W.P.(C) No. 2175 of 2024 ======================== Dated this the 5th day of September, 2024 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 2nd respondent proceedings purportedly exercise power under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that concerning the very same property, O.S. No.461/2022 and O.S. No.273/2023 are pending before the Munisiff's Court, Thaliparamba in which Exts.P14 and P15 interim orders were also passed. It is not in dispute that the subject …
-
… The grievance of the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta is that his neighbor, the 4th respondent, had removed earth from his property and caused severe damage to the property of the petitioner. The District Collector examined the complaint's grievance and passed proceedings dated 06.08.2018 under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was also ordered to take action against the 4th respondent under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. 2.1. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the order was passed in the year 2018, no action was taken by respondents 1 to 3, and therefore, he …
-
… Officer on the basis of a complaint preferred by the additional 3rd respondent invoking Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Corporation Authorities are bound to remove the unauthorised obstruction. The pendency of any appeal before the Tribunal cannot be a reason to stop the proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the Revenue Divisional officer at the instance of the 3rd respondent. ] 7. The additional 3rd respondent further submitted that inspite of knowing that the additional 3rd respondent has grievance in the matter and filed a complaint, the petitioner has approached …
Questions about Section 133
What have the courts held on Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Abdul Hamid v. State of Uttarakhand (12 Feb 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: CrPC 133 is only for public nuisance; a dilapidated tenanted house is not 133(1)(d) unless it threatens the neighbourhood or passers-by, and landlords cannot use it to evict a tenant (Abdul Hamid). Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below. They run from 2007 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
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: CRPC 133, section 133 CRPC, section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Abdul Hamid v. State of Uttarakhand (12 Feb 2018).
What should I read with Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 152 (Conditional order for removal of nuisance), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 133, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.