- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. K SHEIK AHMED C/O LATE KUTTI SAB AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS WARD NO.24, GOWRI KALUVE VTC CHIKMAGALUR POST: CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT CHIKMAGALUR-577101 2. K SYIAD AHMAD C/O KUTTI SAB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OPPOSITE MADEENA MASJID T M ROAD, MELINAPETE, KOPPA CHIKKAMAGALURU-577126 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SACHIN B S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR KOPPA TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577126 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA) Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 30.06.2025 IN W.P. NO.15059/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15059/2025 instituted by the appellants/petitioners. 2. In the said writ petition, the petitioners had assailed the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Tahsildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District, under Section 164 read with Section 166 of the the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that the order under Sections 164 and 166 of the BNSS, as provided, should be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. No such opportunity was afforded to the petitioners, who are the owners of the land bearing Survey Nos.37, 38 and 40 situated in Koppa Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge, without considering the provisions of Sections 164 and 166 of the BNSS, has dismissed the writ petition though admittedly no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. 4. It would be appropriate to take note of Sections 164 and 166 of the BNSS, which are extracted hereunder:- "164. Procedure where dispute concerning land or water is likely to cause breach of peace.- (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 an advocate on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 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 Sanhita for the service of 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, without reference to the merits or the claims of any of the parties to a right to possess the subject of dispute, peruse 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 (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 of dispute, 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 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 126." "166. Dispute concerning right of use of land or water.- (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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 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." 5. From the perusal of the provisions of Sections 164 and 166 of the BNSS, it is evident that an opportunity of hearing has to be afforded to the parties after an order under sub- section (1) of Section 164 or Section 166 is passed by the Executive Magistrate on the police report or on other information. Then summons have to be issued to the parties communicating the order and directing the parties to file written statements of their respective claims. At the time of passing an order under sub-section (1) of Section 164 or Section 166 of BNSS, no opportunity of hearing is required to be given. We, therefore, do not find that the impugned order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2141-DB WA No. 1277 of 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge requires an interference. However, we direct the learned Magistrate to proceed further after issuing summons to the parties for filing their statements and after hearing the parties, pass the final order. 6. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is to be treated as an interim order. 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate should communicate this order to the concerned Magistrate forthwith for necessary compliance. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, pending IAs, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1