ORDER:

I. FACTS IN BRIEF:

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to respondent No.3 not to interfere with the civil cases by infringing the personal life and liberty of the petitioners and consequently direct the respondents to act in accordance with law.

2. The case of the petitioners is that respondent No.3, at the behest of respondent No.4, has been illegally interfering with the personal life, liberty, and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' property bearing Municipal Nos.15-8-574, 15-8-575, 15-8-576, and 15-8-577, admeasuring 62 square yards and House No. 15-8-13, admeasuring 113 square yards, aggregating to a total extent of 175 square yards, situated at Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad. It is the specific grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.3 has been compelling them to settle a civil dispute with respondent No.4, thereby unlawfully interfering in a matter of purely civil nature and converting the police station into a “settlement adda.” The petitioners were allegedly threatened with dire consequences, including false implication in a narcotics case, unless they accede to the demands of respondent No.4. The petitioners received notices from the respondents and in response thereto, issued a detailed reply legal notice dated 06.05.2023. Despite the same and pursuant to the sequence of events narrated above, respondent No.3 on 30.05.2026 deputed constables attached to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Task Force, South Zone, to the petitioners' premises. The presence of the said officials is evident from the photographs annexed to the petition. The petitioners further submit that respondent No.3 personally threatened and pressurized the petitioners to settle the alleged partition dispute in favour of respondent No.4. Such actions of the respondent authorities amount to an abuse of police authority, unlawful interference in a civil dispute, and a violation of the petitioners' Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that he continues to remain in possession and enjoyment of the subject premises. According to petitioners, respondent No.4 is attempting to evict them from the subject property without resorting to due process of law and allegedly utilizing the services of respondent No.3-police for the said purpose.

4. The petitioners allege that police personnel have been repeatedly visiting their premises and are exerting pressure upon them to vacate the premises. Apprehending forcible dispossession with the aid of police machinery, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking protection against such interference of the respondent police authorities.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the petitioners and unofficial respondent arises out of a forceful eviction of the petitioners from the subject property, which is purely civil in nature. It is contended that the petitioners are in continuous and legal possession of the premises and that any dispute concerning continuation of tenancy or recovery of possession can be adjudicated only before a competent civil forum.

6. Learned counsel would further submit that the police authorities have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes or to assist either party in securing possession of the property. It is argued that the repeated visits of the police to the premises and the alleged pressure exerted upon the petitioners to vacate the premises would amount to an abuse of the power and the same is without any jurisdiction.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS:

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the police authorities have received a complaint from respondent No.4 against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the police authorities have no intention of adjudicating