you need to challenge the said restrictions order on valid and relevant grounds and get it set aside

such order (restriction) can be challenged in the higher court,

however,

there seems some doubt,

can you provide a copy of order?

code of conduct has nothing to do with Court Order

What has code of conduct got to do with land distribution 

2) it is necessary to peruse order to advice 

3) file suit for partition for division of property by metes and bounds 

Restrictions order can be challenge in superior Court. Suggest you contact a local lawyer with complete details of your case. 

Probably there is an order of injunction whereby parties are asked to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property.

It means that neither of the parties can change the nature and character of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 

This is very logical and standard order passed in partition suit 

If you're aggrieved by the restraint order procured by the first party, assail the same in an appeal.

Hi,

You have not mentioned who has passed restraining orders. If passed by SDM, then it will be vacated after election. If you wish you may approach high court to get the orders vacated. If orders are from court, you may approach the same court or court of appeal for removal of that order.

Dear Client,

You should have file partition suit to claim your share. All have 1/3rd share each.

What do you mean by restriction orders ? Is it passed by u/s 151 or 107.116 Crpc , Prohibition order ?

Dear Sir,

- Do file "suit for possession based on title" at civil court.

- Also file petition for injunction along with above petition to stop them any illegal selling or construction 

- Do obtain the mutation copy from Municipal Corporation Area or Tehsildar Record Room to have the visibility of Title.

- Do hire the local lawyer to help you filing the case and may feel free to connect incase required any further help.

Regards

Vivek Arya

Without seeing the contents of the orders passed by court no concrete opinion can be rendered, however fro your contents it can be understood that the court has passed an interim order to not alienate or not to encumber the property in any manner till the disposal of suit or it may be an order based on the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the specific relief.

You may approach your advocate to interpret the meaning and clarify the details.

order copy is not visible, send on my email,

if it is 107 Crpc, then provide a copy of remand paper also

you can file a civil suit for claiming the share in your property. 

call/mail for a detailed discussion

no such attachment found 

Hi,

The orders by SDM can be vacated by High court under writ jurisdiction. 

Orders cannot be attached here hence you engage the services of an advocate and get it clarified personally.

Attachment not found please contact personally. 

It`s pity restriction which will effective for 6 months only 

order is not uploaded.

1. The order has to be perused. There is no attachment with the question.

2. You are free to challenge the order.

1. As per the information mentioned in the present query, makes it clear that order has been passed for keeping the peace in the area which may be hindered by either of the parties for next one year, as it speaks from the section enumerated above.
2. Aggrieved party can challenge the order but not standing against the order, but after filing a civil suit before the civil court of law to get the restriction set aside and to declare title over the property by way of the partitioned as mentioned above.
3. The order passed doesn’t creat any conviction over the parties but yes if violated then it may be contempt of court.
4. So, civil remedy will be the appropriate remedy to get right over the subject property.

5. Section 107 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
   107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.

   
   (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, 1 with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

   
   (2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.