The magistrate's order under this section permanently decides who legally owns the right to use the land or water.

The order is only a temporary, peace-keeping measure based on recent actual use; final ownership or legal title must still be decided by a civil court.

This section applies to any land dispute.

It applies specifically to disputes about the *right to use* land or water—like easements, rights of way, or irrigation rights—not to disputes about possession or ownership of the land itself, which fall under Section 164.

The magistrate can order removal of an obstruction no matter how long ago the right was last used.

The law requires that the right must have been exercised within three months before the complaint (for year-round rights) or during the last relevant season or occasion (for seasonal rights), otherwise no such order can be made.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

Section 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 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.§

Why this exists

Disputes over rights like irrigation channels, rights of way, grazing rights, or fishing in a pond are common in rural and agrarian India and can quickly escalate into violence between families or villages. Rather than waiting for slow civil litigation to sort out who is legally right, this provision (carried forward from Section 147 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) allows a magistrate to intervene urgently as a peacekeeping measure—not to finally settle ownership or legal title, but to maintain calm by protecting whoever seems, on the evidence available, to actually hold the disputed right, until a civil court can decide the matter properly.

How courts read it

Courts have historically treated this kind of provision (earlier Section 147 CrPC) as a preventive, law-and-order measure rather than a mechanism for finally deciding property or easement rights. Judicial decisions under the old Code emphasized that the magistrate's inquiry is summary in nature, meant only to preserve peace by protecting actual, recent use of a right, and that any formal declaration of title or permanent right must still be sought through a civil suit. Because case law under the newly renumbered BNSS provision is still developing, specific judgments interpreting Section 166 itself are not yet well established.

Common misconceptions

Myth: The magistrate's order under this section permanently decides who legally owns the right to use the land or water.
Fact: The order is only a temporary, peace-keeping measure based on recent actual use; final ownership or legal title must still be decided by a civil court.
Myth: This section applies to any land dispute.
Fact: It applies specifically to disputes about the *right to use* land or water—like easements, rights of way, or irrigation rights—not to disputes about possession or ownership of the land itself, which fall under Section 164.
Myth: The magistrate can order removal of an obstruction no matter how long ago the right was last used.
Fact: The law requires that the right must have been exercised within three months before the complaint (for year-round rights) or during the last relevant season or occasion (for seasonal rights), otherwise no such order can be made.