Civil disputes regarding property rights must be resolved in civil courts, and police do not have jurisdiction to interfere.

ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent no. 3, respondent no. 5 and 6 in asking the petitioners to go to their offices and agree for a settlement with R7 and asking the petitioners to put signatures on some blank stamp and white papers regards the settlement of the house property with R7 situate in an extent of 3/4 kunta that is in an extent of 55.76 sq. yards in syno.701 bearing d.no.16/517, Jayasree colony, B.kothakota town annamayya district admeasuring east to west 27 1/2 feet and north to south 18 1/4 feet without conducting any enquiry and not to insist the petitioners to vacate the subject house property without prior notice to the petitioners and without following the due process of law as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the authorities R3, R5 and R6 to not call for the petitioners to their offices and not to insist the petitioners to go for a settlement with R7 for the above house property and not to force them to sign stamp papers and empty white papers and not to ask them to vacate from the said house and not to damage the civil rights and claims of the petitioners in the subject property which are standing on the name of the R7 detrimental to the rights and interests of the petitioners…”

2. Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the very substratum of the present Writ Petition rests upon the arbitrary and unconstitutional interference of the respondent authorities into what is essentially a civil dispute. The Petitioners, being lawful residents of the subject house property, have been coerced and summoned by Respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 without issuance of any statutory notice, without adherence to due process, and without jurisdictional competence. Such coercive measures, undertaken at the behest of Respondent No.7, who is none other than the mother of Petitioner No.1, amount to a blatant transgression of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby infringing upon the Petitioners’ civil liberties and proprietary rights.

3. It is further contended that the genesis of the dispute lies in the subject house property situated at Jayasree Colony, B. Kothakota town, which was constructed exclusively from the ancestral nucleus and agricultural income of Petitioner No.2. The documentary evidence, including pattadar passbooks and sale deeds of ancestral lands, unequivocally establish that the financial contributions emanated solely from Petitioner No.2 and Petitioner No.1, while Respondent No.7’s contribution was nil. The mere fact that the house was registered in the name of Respondent No.7, as a measure of convenience to avoid familial bickering, does not ipso facto confer absolute ownership upon her. The settled principle of law is that title must be traced to the source of funds, and not merely to the nominal holder of the document.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.7, instead of availing herself of the remedies available under civil law, has chosen to invoke the machinery of the police and revenue authorities, thereby converting a civil dispute into purported criminal enquiry. The Respondents herein, by compelling the Petitioners to attend their offices, by threatening them with dire consequences, and by insisting upon signatures on blank papers, have acted in excess of jurisdiction and in derogation of the rule of law.

5. It is submitted that the Petitioners are not mere trespassers or strangers to the property, but lawful heirs with