THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.40495 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 6th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the official respondents more particularly respondent No. 6 not to interfere with the position of the petitioners over the land admeasuring Ac.3. 15 Gts in Sy.No, 316, 317, 373, 374 of Anmangal, Hayattinagar village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga reddy District.…”

2. None for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 7.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondents/police authorities, and in particular respondent No.6, have never interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the land described in the writ petition. It is contended that the averments made in the petition are vague, unsupported by specific particulars, and devoid of any legally admissible evidence. He further submits that the only interaction between the police authorities and the petitioners was in connection with the investigation of Crime Nos.799 of 2017 and 825 of 2017, and that subsequent to the said investigations, the respondents/police had no occasion or reason to interfere with the petitioners’ possession or enjoyment of the land in question.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The petitioners’ grievance is that the respondents/police authorities have been interfering with their possession over the property mentioned in the writ petition. However, such an allegation, even if accepted at face value, relates to a dispute of purely civil nature, involving questions of ownership and possession, which fall within the jurisdiction of the civil courts.

7. It is a well-settled principle of law that police authorities have no role to play in disputes of a civil character, such as issues concerning property ownership, possession, or boundary disputes, unless the matter involves commission of a cognizable offence or maintenance of public order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398, has reiterated that the police cannot assume the role of civil adjudicators or interfere in private property disputes under the guise of investigation or preventive action.

8. Accordingly, the respondents/police authorities are directed to refrain from interfering with the possession or enjoyment of the petitioners over the property mentioned in the petition and from intervening in disputes of a purely civil nature between the petitioners and private individuals.

9. It is, however, clarified that any lawful action taken by the respondents/police in strict accordance with law and due process, shall stand saved and unaffected by this order.

10. With the above direction and clarification, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 13.10.2025 CHS