JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider and dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. which has been duly forwarded by the District Magistrate, Sahibganj to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide letter dated 03.01.2025, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 of the writ petition. A second prayer has also been made commanding upon the respondents to grant an order of status-quo with respect to the subject matter of the petition until the final disposal of the petition under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the disputed land stands recorded in the name of Baji Nath Sah @ Baji Nath Prasad Verma who was the father of the petitioner and after the death of the father of the petitioner; consequent upon family agreement between the surviving legal heirs, the disputed land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in possession of the disputed land and one Anita Devi along with labourers and antisocial elements began demolishing the structure of the petitioner standing over the disputed land, claiming ownership of the same and caused significant damage to the eastern portion of the residential house of the petitioner and pulled down one iron gate and removed wooden beans. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2024 in the court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate; which was dismissed by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 18.10.2024 with the observation that the parties may take shelter of the civil court. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed FIR vide Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115 (2), 324(5), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahibganj but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahibganj did not take any action. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahibganj but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahibganj did not take any action. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed an application before the District Magistrate, Sahibganj and upon receiving the application, the District Magistrate, Sahibganj duly forwarded it to the S.D.M., Sahibganj vide annexure-6 but no case has been registered upon the said petition. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents did not find any relevant material/documents of khasmahal land for proving the exclusive title of the writ petitioner over the proceeding land under khasmahal jurisdiction for passing an order on the petition under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. of the writ petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the averments made at page no. 17 in the counter affidavit of the respondent no.2 and 3 in paragraph no. 8 goes to show that, it is admitted on the part of the respondents that the writ petitioner has filed a petition under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. but the reasoning for not passing any order on the same, as stated in the counter affidavit filed in this writ petition is that, the petitioner has failed to show his exclusive title over the disputed land. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the ground upon which the case has not been registered and no order has been passed in the said application filed by the writ petitioner, is certainly not sustainable in law. 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that Section 163 of B.N.S.S.which is corresponds to Section 144 of Cr.P.C. deals with provisions of immediate prevention and speedy remedy and the sine-qua-non for an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. is the urgency requiring an immediate and speedy intervention by passing of an order. Such provision can be used only in grave circumstances for maintaining public peace. The efficacy of the provision is to prevent any harmful occurrence immediately. Such provision can be used only in grave circumstances for maintaining public peace. The efficacy of the provision is to prevent any harmful occurrence immediately. The emergency must be sudden and the consequences sufficiently grave as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident, (2012) 5 SCC 1 . 8. It is needless to mention here that once an application under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. is filed before the competent Magistrate, it is incumbent upon the Magistrate concerned, to assign a case number to such application and to pass appropriate order by applying its mind to the averments made in the petition and other materials produced or brought to its notice. It is a settled principle law that title of a person seeking the intervention of the court has of little relevance for exercising the power under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. If the application filed does not justify exercise of the power under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. by the Magistrate concerned, an express order in respect of the same is to be passed. 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, it appears that though it is admitted by the respondent no.3 that the petition under Section163 of B.N.S.S. has been submitted by the writ petitioner but neither any case number has been assigned to such petition nor any express order on the merits of the same has been passed and the reason given was that the petitioner was not having any exclusive title over the disputed land. This act of the respondent no.3 is indefensible and is , therefore not sustainable in law. As already indicated above, title has only little relevance so far as the exercise of the power under Section 163 of B.N.S.S. is concerned. 10. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to assign a case number to the petition under Section 163 B.N.S.S. filed by the writ petitioner and to pass appropriate express order in the said case in accordance with law. 11. 10. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to assign a case number to the petition under Section 163 B.N.S.S. filed by the writ petitioner and to pass appropriate express order in the said case in accordance with law. 11. So far as the second prayer is concerned, since the respondent no.3 has not exercised its original jurisdiction as yet, so this Court is not inclined to give any direction to the respondents to pass any order as prayed for by the writ petitioner; suffice is to say, that the respondent no.3 is free to pass any order on the petition submitted by the writ petitioner, the copy of which has also not been annexed with this writ petition. 12. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.