APHC010024762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2180/2026 Between: 1. SHAIK GHOUSE BASHA, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL RAZACK, AGED 56 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.10/11, KUMAR KUNTA STREET, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001. 3. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001 4. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001 5 5. SRI THULASI RAM THANGA, S/O. NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, CONSTABLE, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA , YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001, MOBILE90527 48924 6. SRI DEVAKI ANANDA RAO, S/O. LATE D. A NARAYANA GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 13/55, BKM STREET, KADAPA, YSR 2 KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: <…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 to5, in unlawfully interfering with the civil dispute relating to the petitioners land situated in Sy.No.46/1 admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents, Kumma Kunta Street near Ameen Peer Road, Kadapa City, YSR District, by calling the petitioner to the Police Station, issuing threats and pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the subject property, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to harass the petitioner in any manner…= 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Mujtahid Hussain, learned counsel for Petitioner, submits that at the behest of unofficial respondents, particularly Respondent No.6, Respondent No.4 has been unnecessarily calling the Petitioner and interfering in the civil dispute pending between them in O.S.No.376 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa, wherein the petitioner sought permanent injunction restraining the unofficial respondents and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. 3 4. Per contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.6 submitted a representation to Respondent No.4. Based on that, Respondent No.4 conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), and came to know that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. It is further submitted that an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of Respondent No.6 on 23.10.2025. Subsequently, Respondent No.6 approached Respondent Nos.3 and 4 with the said decree and requested them to take necessary action against the petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 advised the petitioner either to challenge the ex-parte decree or to ensure that no law and order problem arises with regard to the disputed land. Except for the above, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not force or threaten the petitioner to vacate the land and hand it over to Respondent No.6. 5. However, learned counsel for Petitioner submits that he has necessary records and proof to show that, at the behest of Respondent No.6, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have continued to harass him even after filing of the Writ Petition, by calling him for settlement illegally. 6. When a civil dispute is pending between parties, the role of the police is minimal. Even if any law and order problem arises with regard to the disputed property, the police are required to appraise the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate. The police have no role to play in conducting or facilitating any settlement in a civil dispute. 4 7. In this regard it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T1wherein at paragraph Nos.14, 17 & 19 it is held as under: <14. It has been consistently held by this Court that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of the disputes relating to property rights between the private persons. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution being special and extraordinary, it should not be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. 17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not permissible. 19. We do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 for the reasons that first there did exist a dispute between the appellant and Respondent 1 as to who was in possession of the flat in question at the relevant time; second, a dispute regarding possession of the said flat between the two private individuals could be decided only by the civil court in civil suit or by the criminal court in Section 145 CrPC proceedings but not in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.= 8. Further the Hon9ble Apex Court in Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria (Smt.)2, at paragraph No.6 held as under: <6. Mr Arun Jaitley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondents 1 and 2 was also made. It has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondents 3 and 4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned order, considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for removal of the grills for access to the backyard. According to the stand of the landlord-respondent, since the police were taking a partisan attitude against her, the filing of a writ petition became necessary. We are unable to follow this argument. There is no doubt that 1(2019) 2 SCC 329 2(1992) 4 SCC 61 5 the dispute is between two private persons with respect to an immovable property. Further, a suit covering either directly a portion of the house- property which is in dispute in the present case or in any event some other parts of the same property is already pending in the civil court. The respondent justifies the step of her moving the High Court with a writ petition on the ground of some complaint made by the appellants and the action by the police taken thereon. We do not agree that on account of this development, the respondent was entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court. It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment under appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition of the respondents filed in the High Court is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.= 9. A learned single Judge of this Court also in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu3, at paragraph No.14 held as under: <14. The various provisions to which a brief reference is made would show that the power of the police to collect: intelligence regarding any design to commit cognizable offences and prevent commission Of cognizable offences is considered to be the inherent power of the police organization. Whether or not there is a special enactment, the police are expected to perform its functions; namely, maintenance of peace and public order and prevention of cognizable offences. When all these statutes dealing with police in Andhra Pradesh deal with duty of the police relating to cognizable offences, a Police Officer would not be justified in saying that he/she is looking into a complaint made by a person which has, ex facie, trappings of the civil dispute. Indeed, under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of Cr. P.C., it shall be within the power and duty of the police officer to register only a cognizable offence. Though under Section 155 of Cr. P.C. a police officer can make an entry in the appropriate register about the information as to non-cognizable offence, such police officer shall not investigate a non-cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate. As a necessary corollary, it must be concluded that any effort on the part of the police >to look into? any complaint by any person which does not contain allegations of 32002 SCC OnLine AP 1212 6 commission of cognizable offences would not only violate the various provisions of the Andhra Act, as in this case, but also would violate Section 155(2) of the Cr. P.C. Any such action would be ex facie illegal, whatever be the ipse dixit of the police. There is no presumption in law that every rift in human relations would lead to a civil dispute and civil dispute would likely to result in clashes, resulting in offences against human body. Any such effort on the part of the police to look into the complaints regarding civil disputes is not even the part of the Code of Conduct of the Police, which was communicated by the Government of India in 1987 which reads as under: Code of Conduct for the Police in India [ Union Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No. VI-24021/97/84-GPAI, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985.] 1. The Police must bear faithful allegiance to the Constitution of India and respect and uphold the rights of the citizens as guaranteed by it. 2. The Police should not question the propriety or necessity of any law duly enacted. They should enforce the law firmly and impartially, without fear or favour, malice or vindictiveness. 3. The Police should recognize and respect the limitations of their powers and functions. They should not usurp or even seem to usurp the functions of the judiciary and sit in judgment on cases to avenge individuals and punish the guilty. 4. In securing the observance of law or in maintaining order, the Police should as far as practicable, use the methods of persuasion, advice and warning. When the application of force becomes inevitable, only the irreducible minimum of force required in the circumstances should be used. 5. The prime duty of the Police is to prevent crime and disorder and the Police must recognize that the test of their efficiency is the absence of both and not the visible evidence of Police action in dealing with them. 6. The Police must recognize that they are members of the public, with the only difference that in the interest of the society and on its behalf they are employed to give full time attention to duties, which are normally incumbent on every citizen to perform. 7. The Police should realize that the efficient performance of their duties will be dependent on the extent of real co-operation that they receive from the public. This, in turn, will depend on their ability to secure public approval of their conduct and actions and to earn and retain public respect and confidence. 8. The Police should always keep the welfare of the people in mind and be sympathetic and considerate towards them. They should always be ready to offer individual service and friendship and render necessary assistance to all without regard to their wealth or social standing. 9. The Police should always place duty before self, should remain calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule and should be ready to sacrifice their lives in protecting those of others. 10. The Police should always be courteous and well mannered; they should be dependable and impartial; they should possess dignity and courage; and should cultivate character and the trust of the people. 11. Integrity of the highest order is the fundamental basis of the prestige of the Police Recognizing this, the Police must keep their private lives scrupulously clean, develop self-restraint and be truthful and honest in thought and deed, in both personal and official life, so that the public may regard them as exemplary citizen. 12. The Police should recognize that their full utility to the State is the best ensured only by maintaining a high standard of discipline, faithful 7 performance of duties in accordance with law and implicit obedience to the lawful directions of commanding ranks and absolute loyalty to the force and by keeping themselves in a state of constant training and preparedness. 13. As members of a secular, democratic State, the Police should strive continually to rise above personal prejudices and promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people in India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities and to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women and disadvantaged segments of the society.= 10. Furthermore, the very same learned Single Judge of this Court also in J. Lakshmi v. Commissioner of Police4, at paragraph No.4 held as under: <4. It is well settled that Police cannot interfere in civil disputes. In W.P. No. 12737 of 2003 disposed of on 21-11-2003, I have considered the question regarding the power of Police to interfere in civil disputes and coerce people to compromise civil disputes. After referring to my earlier judgment in S. Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu 2002 (2) An. W.R. 582 (A.P.) as well as the code of conduct for the Police prescribed by Union of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No. VI-24021/97/84- G.P.A. I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985, summarized the legal position as under. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised. The Supreme Court also repeatedly laid down that when the dispute between the two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. Further, when there is a civil litigation either before the court of law or before the tribunal, the police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil disputes. Further, when there is a civil litigation either before a court of law or before a tribunal, the police cannot interfere and even if a complaint is made in relation to such dispute pending in a civil court, the citizens have to be advised to resolve the dispute through a duly constituted court of law. In the scheme of the Constitution of India, the duty to resolve civil disputes is entrusted to judiciary. Police have no such power. Any interference by police in a pending civil dispute or a potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the province of the police. Furthermore, if a cognizable offence is reported to the police, it is the duty of the police to register the crime under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.) and take up investigation immediately. In a given case, even if a civil dispute, to say a land dispute, is pending before a civil court and if the quarrel between the two warring parties has a potential of resulting in a law and order problem posing threat to the society at large, the police can always take up the case only after registering the crime under Section 154 Cr. P.C. Without registering the crime and without any reason the police cannot interfere.= 42004 SCC OnLine AP 29 8 11. Indeed, once a petition is submitted by Respondent No.6 concerning civil disputes, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not competent to entertain or initiate any form of conciliation, as such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, the District Collector or the Superintendent of Police may, at their discretion, forward the said representation of Respondent No.6 to the District Legal Services Authority or the Mandal Legal Services Committee concerned, as the case may be or to the Mediation Centre. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent No.3 not to further interfere in the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 and other persons in respect of the disputed property. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.02.2026 PRA 9 219 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2180 of 2026 Date: 11.02.2026 PRA