Section 152 BNSS requires proper conditional order, evidence inquiry before absolutism; spot inspection invalid substitute. Cannot compel private land use for public projects without acquisition; procedural safeguards mandatory against jurisdictional abuse. (32 words)

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present revision against the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., vide which the conditional order passed under Section 152 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), was made absolute. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision are that residents of Upper Gangtoli made a complaint to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Rohru, District Shimla, HP, asserting that the Department of JSV was laying a sewerage line in the area. Prem Dayal is also one of the beneficiaries. He executed an affidavit for the construction of a sewerage line on his property; however, he subsequently objected to the installation of a pipeline on his land. He was requested to allow the laying of the sewerage line, but he did not agree. Therefore, it was prayed that an appropriate action be taken against him.

3. Learned SDM, passed an order under Section 152 of BNSS, that the respondent was obstructing the laying of a sewerage line, he had constructed a building in the area in such a manner as would lead to permanent blockade of the line, which act amounted to public nuisance; hence, he was directed to appear before the Court on 23.09.2024.

4. The respondent No. 1 filed a reply, taking a preliminary objection regarding the lack of maintainability. He asserted that the khasra number where the line was to be laid was not mentioned. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act did not extend to the area where the land was located, and no sewerage pipe can be laid without the acquisition of the land. On merits, it was asserted that the villagers wanted to harm the respondents, and the respondents would have to leave their building to lay the sewerage pipe. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. Learned SDM made the conditional order absolute on 13.09.2024 after holding that the public interest overrides the private interest, and directed the respondents to remove the nuisance created by them.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned SDM, the respondents have filed the present revision, asserting that the sewerage pipe was proposed to be laid between the land of Prem Dayal and Pyar Pati. The sewerage line was constructed through khasra No. 785, but it was dismantled. The sewerage line is proposed to be laid adjacent to the respondent’s kitchen, which would make it difficult for them to reside in the house. Learned SDM had no jurisdiction to permit the laying of the sewerage pipe without the acquisition of the land. The petitioners constructed the house after obtaining the sanction from the authorities. The alignment of the sewerage pipeline was changed to harm the petitioners; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned SDM be set aside.

7. I have heard Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prashan Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/ State.

8. Mr. Arsh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are the owners of the land. The learned SDM cannot deprive them of their land without acquisition. The jurisdiction un