Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The doctrine emphasizes that the mere pendency of civil litigation or criminal proceedings does not preclude magistrates from exercising their statutory powers, especially in cases involving breach of peace, possession, or public order ["MONOHARLAL DUTT VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Calcutta"], ["Surendra Kumar Patra VS Kanduri Bhatta - Orissa"], ["Virendra VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MONOHARLAL DUTT VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Calcutta"]- ["NARESH PRASAD SAHA vs SUNIL KUMAR SAHA - Orissa"]- ["Surendra Kumar Patra VS Kanduri Bhatta - Orissa"]- ["Kanwar Pal Bishnoi VS Addl. Sessions Judgs & 2 others - Crimes"]- ["Rama Deo VS State Of Orissa - Orissa"]- ["SUJIT SAHU SON OF LATE SUDHAKAR SAHU VS STATE OF ODISHA REPRESENTED THROUGH ADDL CHEIF SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIORNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE - National Green Tribunal"]- ["ARJUN CH. SAMAL VS ANANTA CH. DASH - Orissa"]- ["IRA GANGULI VS KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Calcutta"]
In property disputes, tensions often escalate, threatening public peace. A common question arises: if a matter is sub judice—meaning it's already before a court—does that bar an executive magistrate from passing an order with regard to the plot of land? This issue frequently surfaces in land conflicts where urgent action is needed to prevent breaches of peace.
Generally, the answer is no. The pendency of a civil or criminal case does not automatically prevent an executive magistrate from intervening, especially under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). These provisions empower magistrates to maintain order without delving into ownership disputes, which are reserved for civil courts. However, orders must be provisional, based on emergent circumstances, and strictly avoid deciding title or possession rights permanently. This blog examines key legal findings, case law, and practical insights.
Disclaimer: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Legal precedents establish that mere pendency of proceedings does not tie the hands of executive magistrates. Orders under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC aim to prevent breaches of peace, not adjudicate ownership. As long as the order stays within statutory limits and addresses urgent threats to public tranquility, it remains valid—even if a civil suit is ongoing. Ramji Ram, S/o Shri Parsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1733
For example, in Mohammad Ramjan and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, the court clarified: The proceeding under Sections 145-146 Cr.P.C. are not made for the purpose of taking possession of immovable property from one person and handing over the same to the other person. Who is the person best entitled to get the possession... is an issue required by the law to be dealt with by a Civil or Revenue Courts. Ramji Ram, S/o Shri Parsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1733
Similarly, Mohammad Aijaz v. State of U.P. emphasized: The object of the provision is merely to maintain law and order and to prevent a breach of the peace by maintaining one or other of the parties in possession, until the actual right of one of the parties has been determined by a civil court. Rajvindra Kaur w/o Mahendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1499
Proceedings under Sections 145/146 are preventive and temporary. They focus on 'status quo' regarding possession to avert violence, without prejudice to civil rights. The law consistently holds that these are not substitutes for civil adjudication. Rajvindra Kaur w/o Mahendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1499
In Gulab Devi v. State of U.P., the court invalidated an order for failing to follow procedure and encroaching on civil domain: The impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, in his executive capacity... even then it is illegal because the prescribed procedure was not followed and the petitioner was not given opportunity to be heard. Mohammad Ramjan VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301
Multiple rulings affirm that sub judice status does not halt executive intervention if peace is at risk. In one case, the court noted: But, the same ipso facto does not arrest the hand of the Executive Magistrate to initiate a claim that the dispute is subjudice in Civil Court. NARESH PRASAD SAHA vs SUNIL KUMAR SAHA
However, parallel proceedings require caution. In a dispute over plot conversion from Section 144 to 145 CrPC, the court quashed orders post-expiry of the two-month limit under Section 144, ruling: When Civil Court is in seisin of the matter, it would be sheer waste of public time and energy to proceed with the parallel proceeding u/s 145, Cr PC. TAPASYA BEHERA VS PADMA CHARAN BEHERA - 1996 Supreme(Ori) 285
A cardinal rule: Magistrates cannot decide title. Orders venturing into this are liable to be set aside. In Surinder Pal Kaur (linked to Ramji Ram, S/o Shri Parsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1733), it was held: The Magistrate... would confine himself to ascertaining which of the disputing parties was in possession... and maintain the status quo as to possession until the entitlement to possession was determined by a competent court.
Supporting this, another judgment stressed: The Executive Magistrate's power under Section 145... is limited to the procedures for preventing a breach of peace and does not extend to deciding on title disputes. Meenatchiammal VS Sankar - 2013 Supreme(Mad) 3250
Orders are justifiable when backed by evidence of imminent breach of peace. Courts uphold them if the magistrate records 'satisfaction' of such risks. For instance, in encroachment disputes, executive actions were validated only after verification, not mere allegations. Barendra Nath Sahoo VS State of West Bengal - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 170
In Thankappan v. State of Kerala (Sathyan, S/o. Vasudevan Thayyil Veedu VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 376), powers under related acts were deemed executive for nuisances, reinforcing that urgent, non-judicial remedies are permissible alongside sub judice matters.
Yet, limitations persist. In a case involving unauthorized structures, the court quashed a Mamlatdar's order for lacking jurisdiction over title: The said authority or power is not vested with the Mamlatdar – Executive Magistrate to pass an order in respect of a land... Bankabhai Lakhanbhai Bhaiyaji VS State of Gujarat - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 990
While sub judice does not bar action, violations render orders void:- Procedural Lapses: No hearing or improper conversion of proceedings (e.g., post Section 144 expiry). TAPASYA BEHERA VS PADMA CHARAN BEHERA - 1996 Supreme(Ori) 285- Title Decisions: Any finding on ownership invites quashing. Mohammad Ramjan VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301- No Emergent Threat: Mere civil pendency without peace risk precludes interference. Phoolmati VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2086- Administrative Overreach: Cannot dispossess settled possessors without due process. Phoolmati VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2086
In one writ, the court directed restoration: Administrative authorities cannot interfere in civil property disputes pending before a competent court, and dispossession must follow due process of law. Phoolmati VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2086
Authorities should ensure orders are 'reasoned and speaking,' as directed in environmental-land cases. SUJIT SAHU SON OF LATE SUDHAKAR SAHU VS STATE OF ODISHA REPRESENTED THROUGH ADDL CHEIF SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FOREST ENVIORNMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE
In summary, a matter being sub judice does not bar an executive magistrate from passing orders on a plot of land, provided they are provisional, peace-focused, and eschew title adjudication. Judgments like Ramji Ram, S/o Shri Parsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1733, Mohammad Ramjan VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301, and Rajvindra Kaur w/o Mahendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1499 reaffirm this balance between urgency and judicial hierarchy.
Key Takeaways:- Pendency alone doesn't prohibit CrPC 145/146 orders.- Focus: Prevent breach of peace, not resolve ownership.- Invalid if: Procedural flaws, title decisions, or no emergency.- Always prioritize civil courts for rights determination.
Stay informed on evolving precedents, as courts continue refining these boundaries. For tailored guidance, engage legal experts.
References:1. Ramji Ram, S/o Shri Parsa Ram vs State Of Rajasthan - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1733 - Mohammad Ramjan and Ors.2. Mohammad Ramjan VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 1301 - Gulab Devi v. State of U.P.3. Rajvindra Kaur w/o Mahendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan through the Public Prosecutor - 2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1499 - Mohammad Aijaz v. State of U.P.4. Additional insights from TAPASYA BEHERA VS PADMA CHARAN BEHERA - 1996 Supreme(Ori) 285, NARESH PRASAD SAHA vs SUNIL KUMAR SAHA, Phoolmati VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 2086, etc.
#LandDispute #CrPC145 #SubJudice
So, no exception could be taken with regard to the impugned order itself of the civil suit will not be regarded as a bar in getting appropriate relief under Section 133, of Cr. P. ... Ltd. however, did not purchase any land from the petitioner or any plot from the petitioner's land as such they had no right to use the private road which is meant for the exclusive user of the petitioner and/or his purchasers. ... Ltd. a private limited company purchas....
But, the same ipso facto does not arrest the hand of the Executive Magistrate to initiate a claim that the dispute is subjudice in Civil Court. ... Having regard to the materials on record, the finding of the learned S.D.M., Baripada that the The property forming subject-matter of the dispute is a building standing over Plot No.257 under Khata
... Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since admit¬tedly civil suit and two proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. are subjudice between the parties, the Executive Magistrate ought not have initiated the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. ... Misc. case Nos. 458/2004, and 459/2004 under Sec¬tion 107 Cr.P.C. have been instituted against both the parties which are subjudice at present.” ... 4. After holding so, he ordered that he was not inclined to proceed further in the....
, pass a reasoned and speaking order not later than 28.11.2022. ... The question as to whether the Farm Land Bridge/Culvert has been constructed strictly as per the design and details prepared by the Technical Experts team is a matter which is still subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court ... A direction was issued to the Respondent No.4, Collector & District Magistrate, Puri, stating clearly whether the order of the Hon’ble High Cour....
, pass a reasoned and speaking order not later than 28.11.2022. ... The question as to whether the Farm Land Bridge/Culvert has been constructed strictly as per the design and details prepared by the Technical Experts team is a matter which is still subjudice before the Hon’ble High Court ... A direction was issued to the Respondent No.4, Collector & District Magistrate, Puri, stating clearly whether the order of the Hon’ble High Cour....
The disputed land appertains to plot No. 531 under Khata No. 61 of mouza Dangulu, P. S. Sadar, District Phulbani. ... . - This petition u/s 482, Cr PC is filed invoking inherent power of the Court to quash the order of the learned Executive Magistrate passed in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1990 converting the proceeding u/s 144. ... So, the life span of the order being two months, it automatically comes to an end on the expiry of the said period and the Magistrate becomes fun....
(C) PIL No. 18183/2022 was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 directing the Collector, Puri, to examine the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners also and thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order not later than 28.11.2022. ... The question as to whether the Farm Land Bridge/Culvert has been constructed strictly as per the design and details prepared by the Technical Experts team is a matter which is still #H....
The PWD (Roads) Directorate requested the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer for demarcation of the suit plot vide memo dated 18.8.2017 and the Executive Engineer requested to look into the matter and take suitable measure to the District Magistrate. ... The PWD (Roads) Directorate requested the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer for demarcation of the suit plot vide memo dated 18.8.2017 and the Executive Enginee....
Since no such exercise was undertaken by the petitioners the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rightly proceeded to pass the order dated September 11, 2025 and in such view of the matter, the said order at the present moment cannot be faulted. 11. ... The said order was followed up by another order dated October 14, 2025, whereby the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas, directed the Executive Engineer, BMS Division, “t....
State of U.P, 2006 (2) JTC 177, the Division Bench of this Court has also clearly held that the Executive Magistrate cannot decide the civil rights of the parties by passing executive order. In the said case Sub Divisional Magistrate, Charra, district Aligarh had passed order allowing the Opp. ... In the year 1988, the father-in-law of the petitioner paid Rs. 3500/- to Chandarbali, the recorded tenure holder/owner of the land for purchase of Plot No.....
one dated 23.5.2016 (Annexure-H) and followed by notice dated 4.10.2018 issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, National Highway Authority of India, Sub-Division, Navsari contending, inter alia, that appellants have made unauthorised kachcha hut / roof like construction illegally on the right side of the road at Khambhaliya village. Though said authorities have attempted to rely upon the order of the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate, we are of the view that the said authority or power is not vested with the Mamlatdar – Executive Magistrate to pass an order in respect of a land v....
On a close scrutiny, I find it difficult to accede to the submission that the stay of the order passed by the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court, does not amount to calling in question the ration of the judgment of the Delhi High Court. Act in respect of the information which is under the control of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, in a fiduciary capacity, no fault can be found with the reply of the P.I.O. that the information cannot be furnished on those points.” Since the matter is subjudice, as the Apex court is seized with the matter of applicability of the provisions of R.T.I....
Apart from following the procedures contemplated under Section 145(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he adopted his own procedure by arrogating himself to that of the Civil Court. It is also to be noted that the complaint was given by the petitioners and on their petition, the matter was referred to the learned Executive Magistrate. When there is no power vested with the Executive Magistrate to pass the interim order, he proceeded to pass such an order that too after going into the title. Further more, at the time of passing the order, there was an order of injunction in f....
Jeevan Latha Srivasthava 1995 (3) ALD 305to consider the situation and to remedy the situation by upholding the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amalapuram, East Godavari District 1974 (1) ANWR 76pendency of civil suit on the subject matter is no bar for the Executive Magistrate to pass an order under Section 145 Cr.P.C. In similar situation, wherein the civil Court miserably failed in its duty to give a finding regarding possession and passed status quo order, this Court had another occasion in G. Sudersha....
Whereas the matter is still subjudice in the Court of Law. Whereas the Department considered the representation of the petitioner for his appointment in the Government College of Engineering and Technology, Jammu. Whereas Shri Sumeer Khajuria has represented for his appointment as Lecturer against the post of Lecturer in the discipline of Electronics and Communication Engineering which has become available due to rationalization of posts in various Departments of Government College of Engineering and Technology, Jammu. "The matter being subjudice, the Department is advised ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
