Section 528 BNSS Cannot Operate as a Disguised Second Revision

Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Sumeet Goel of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Rampal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026), held that where a Sessions Court has already examined an order in revision, a further challenge before the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS operates within an "extraordinarily constricted domain". The Court dismissed a challenge to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order directing a receiver to hand over about 514 kanals of land in District Kaithal to a samadh. 

What was the Background of Rampal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The dispute concerned about 514 kanals 6 marlas of land in Village Gohana, District Kaithal. 
• The petitioners claimed rights under a registered lease-deed dated 06.06.1970, stated to have been executed by the Mohatmim of Samadh Baba Nihal Gir for 99 years (1971 to 2070) for ₹60,000. They relied on a 1972 mutation and subsequent jamabandis (Record of Rights) and khasra girdawaris (possession records) to establish continuous cultivating possession. 
• According to the petitioners, they learnt in 2008 that the girdawari entries had been altered in favour of the samadh. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, corrected the entries in their favour, but on appeal the matter was remanded and remains pending. 
• The petitioners alleged that the respondents attempted to take forcible possession on 18.05.2015, following which they filed a civil suit for injunction. The private respondents then initiated proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the CrPC. 
• On 01.06.2015, the SDM, Kaithal, attached the land and appointed the Naib Tehsildar as receiver. On 11.12.2017, the Additional Sessions Judge set aside this order because the Magistrate had not recorded the satisfaction required under Section 145. 
• On a fresh application by the private respondents, the SDM, by order dated 04.01.2018, directed the receiver to deliver possession to Samadh Baba Nihal Gir through its Mahant. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, dismissed the petitioners' revision on 26.07.2024, noting that their civil suit had been dismissed on 29.08.2015, their first appeal on 10.01.2023, and that a regular second appeal was pending before the High Court. 
• The petitioners then approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS. 

Contentions of the Parties: 

• The petitioners argued that the SDM had failed to properly consider the lease-deed, the revenue entries and the revenue authorities' reports showing continuous possession.  
• They contended that once the 2015 attachment order had been set aside, the subsequent order directing delivery of possession was untenable, and that their rights under a subsisting lease running till 2070 could not be defeated through proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC. 
• The State submitted that the dispute was essentially private in nature.  
• The private respondents argued that the SDM's order suffered from no illegality or jurisdictional error, that the civil court had already decided the dispute against the petitioners, and that the revisional court had duly considered the revenue record and the civil court's judgment. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the Scope of Section 528 BNSS: 

• The Court observed that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly, only to prevent abuse of the process of court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 
• It drew a distinction between two kinds of challenges.  
• Where the High Court is approached directly against an order of the court or authority of first instance, it has a broader canvas to examine perversity or illegality. Where the challenge is to an order passed by a Sessions Court in revision, the High Court's scrutiny is far narrower. 

On Section 528 as a Disguised Second Revision: 

• The Court noted that revisional jurisdiction is itself confined to patent illegality, procedural impropriety, jurisdictional error and manifest miscarriage of justice. 
• A further challenge under Section 528 against a revisional order therefore effectively becomes a disguised second revision, which the BNSS bars. 
• The Court held: "Consequently, the petitioner shoulders a heavily accentuated burden to demonstrate an egregious failure of justice or a glaring jurisdictional defect, for inviting an interference by the High Court, in such cases." 

On Disputed Questions of Fact: 

• The Court added that this restraint assumes heightened significance where the dispute turns on intricate and contested questions of possession, title and the legal effect of a lease-deed, which are "alien to summary proceedings." 

On the Pending Civil Proceedings: 

• The Court noted that the dispute was no longer confined to the revenue record. The petitioners' civil suit and first appeal had both been dismissed, and a regular second appeal was pending. The petitioners could not seek a complete re-adjudication of the parties' rights through a quashing petition. 

On the Earlier Order of 2017 and the Lease-Deed: 

• The Court held that the ASJ's order of 11.12.2017 did not assist the petitioners, as it was based on the material and circumstances existing at that time. It further held that the registered lease-deed could not, at this stage, be treated as conclusive proof of possession. 

On the Revisional Court's Order: 

• The Court found that the revisional court had not dismissed the revision mechanically but had considered subsequent developments, including the civil and revenue proceedings. The petitioners failed to show that this reasoning was perverse or that any material document or statutory provision had been ignored. 

Conclusion: 

• Finding no exceptional circumstance warranting interference, the Court dismissed the petition. It clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on any substantive right or claim of the parties pending before any civil, revenue or appellate forum.

What is Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

About: 

• Section 528 of the BNSS saves the inherent powers of the High Court. It corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 
• The provision does not confer any new power; it recognises powers inherent in the High Court as a superior court, to be exercised in exceptional cases. 

The Provision: 

Section 528 states: 

• "Nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Sanhita, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 

Purposes for which Inherent Powers may be Exercised: 

• To give effect to any order under the Sanhita. 
• To prevent abuse of the process of any court. 
• To otherwise secure the ends of justice.

What is the Bar on Second Revision under the BNSS?

About: 

• Section 438 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 397 of the CrPC) confers concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Sessions Judge to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order of an inferior criminal court. 

Section 438(3): 

• "If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them." 
• This clause bars a second revision by the same person. Courts have consistently held that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked to circumvent this bar, except in exceptional cases involving abuse of process or a miscarriage of justice.