APHC010191772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9645/2026 Between: 1. K SREENIVASULU REDDY, S/O.LATE K.RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O.6-1A-10, SAPOTA THOTA, KAVALI, SPSR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPT., SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. - 524001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, I TOWN POLICE STATION KAVALI, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT - 524201 4. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, I TOWN POLICE STATION KAVALI, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT - 524201 5. Y SUMAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE I TOWN PS, KAVALI, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. - 524201 6. NIDAMANURU VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O.D.NO. 1-2-10/11, VISHNALAYAM STREET, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. NIDAMANURU LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O.VENKATA SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O.D.NO.1-2-10/11, VISHNALAYAM STREET, KAVALI, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5TH Respondent interfering with life and properties of Petitioner without any manner of right at the behest of the 6TH and 7TH Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14, 19, 21 AND 300-A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondent Police not to interfere in civil matters with respect to the petitioner’s property to an extent of 54 Ankanams and an extent of 378 Ankanams of vacant land situated in Survey No.718-1-1 and 717-1-1 respectively of Kavali, S.P.S.R.Nellore District without following due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V KRISHNA RAO 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: “…pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th Respondent interfering with life and properties of Petitioner without any manner of right at the behest of the 6th and 7th Respondents as illegal arbitrary violative of Art 14,19,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent No.5, at the behest of Respondent Nos.6 and 7, is interfering in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents and is forcing the Petitioner to execute a sale deed in favour of Respondent No.7. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.5 only acted upon a P.G.R.S complaint received from the P.G.R.S Grievance Cell of SPSR Nellore and, upon enquiry, noticed that the dispute is civil in nature and accordingly directed the parties to settle their dispute before the appropriate legal forum. 5. It is well settled that the police are not supposed to interfere in civil disputes and are not expected to settle such disputes. If any allegations are made in this regard, there are statutory authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act to facilitate settlement of civil disputes between the parties. Even if a complaint is lodged by Respondent No.7 in respect of a dispute which is purely civil in nature between the Petitioner and Respondent No.7, the police ought to refrain from interfering and instead advise Respondent No.7 to approach the competent Civil Court. Further, the officer to whom the P.G.R.S complaint was submitted ought to have verified the submissions of the Petitioner and, upon finding that the matter discloses a civil dispute, should have directed Respondent No.7 to seek appropriate remedies before the Civil Court. Without conducting such a preliminary exercise to ascertain whether the petition discloses a civil dispute, the authority ought not to have referred the matter for police intervention. In any event, if an enquiry is conducted, the Respondent police shall confine themselves to submitting a report strictly in accordance with law and shall not take any coercive steps or interfere in the civil dispute between the parties. 6. 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 Respondent No.5 not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.6 and 7, without following due process of law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 10.04.2026 JLSR 229 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO:9645 of 2026 Date: 10.04.2026 JLSR