Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 639 (AP)

Vinjam Rajamma v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-10-01

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2020
JUDGMENT M Satyanarayana Murthy, J. - This petition is 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 Writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the 5th respondent in involving civil disputes at the behest of respondents 6 to 8 for the lands in Sy.No.229-11 admeasuring Ac.0-20 cents, in Sy.No.229-1 admeasuring Ac.0-23 cents, in Sy.No.224-3 admeasuring Ac.0-48 cents, in Sy.No.223-3 admeasuring Ac.1-58 cents, in Sy.No.222-9 admeasuring Ac.0-42 cents and in Sy.No.284-3 for an extent of Ac.2-08 cents situated at Gottigundalapalem Village of Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and asking the petitioner to settle amicably with unofficial respondents amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to involve in civil disputes in between the petitioner and unofficial respondents with above referred lands and pass such other order." 2. The main ground urged in the affidavit filed along with this petition before this Court is that the dispute is purely civil in nature between this petitioner and respondents 6 to 8 pertaining to different extent of lands in different survey numbers of Gottigundalapalem Village of Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. But the 5th respondent is interfering with the civil disputes at the instance of respondents 6 to 8 and such action of the 5th respondent is now questioned before this Court on the ground that they are not entitled to interfere with the civil disputes, more particularly when the suit in O.S.No.174 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali filed against the husband of this petitioner and others for declaration, was dismissed on 09-07-1999. But still the police are making necessary efforts to interfere with the civil disputes. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that the 5th respondent is unconcerned with the civil disputes and not interfering and gave undertaking that they will not interfere with the civil disputes, unless any crime is registered for cognizable offence, except addressing a letter to the Tahsildar to conduct survey to find out who is in possession. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Home fairly conceded that the 5th respondent is unconcerned with the civil disputes and not interfering and gave undertaking that they will not interfere with the civil disputes, unless any crime is registered for cognizable offence, except addressing a letter to the Tahsildar to conduct survey to find out who is in possession. The 5th respondent is nothing to do with the possession of the property, more particularly when the suit was dismissed and even if any dispute is with regard to possession, it is for the parties to redress their claim before the competent civil Court and police cannot interfere with such civil disputes. Time and again, this Court issued directions to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes. 4. In similar situation in a judgment in J.Lakshmi @ Lakshamamma and another vs. Commissioner of Police and Others, (2004) 2 ALD(Cri) 477 , a direction was issued to the police not to interfere with the civil disputes while referring the directions issued by the Court Masthan Saheb v. P.S.R. Anjaneyulu, (2002) 2 ALD(Cri) 706 (A.P) as wells as guidelines issued by the Union of India vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letters No.VI-24021797/84-GPA.1, dated 04.07.1985 and 10.07.1985 summarized the legal position as under:- The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, the jurisdiction under Article 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. 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. 5. In view of the law declared by this Court in the above judgment and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No. VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985, even if any crime is registered with regard to pending litigation before the Civil Court, the duty of the police is to advice the parties to resolve the dispute duly constituted in Civil Court and they cannot take up the issue. 6. Hence, the respondent police are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No.VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly. However, in view of the submission of learned Government Pleader for Home that respondent police cannot interfere with the pending litigation with reference to same property, which is the subject matter of the case. 7. Therefore, I am of considered view that it is a fit case to direct respondent police to follow the guidelines issued by Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letters No. VI-24021797/84-GPA.I, dated 4-7-1985 and 10-7-1985 strictly and not to interfere with civil disputes relating to lands in Sy.No.229-11 admeasuring Ac.0-20 cents, in Sy.No.229-1 admeasuring Ac.0-23 cents, in Sy.No.224-3 admeasuring Ac.0-48 cents, in Sy.No.223-3 admeasuring Ac.1-58 cents, in Sy.No.222-9 admeasuring Ac.0-42 cents and in Sy.No.284-3 for an extent of Ac.2-08 cents situated at Gottigundalapalem Village of Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 8. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of , at the stage of admission itself, with the consent of both the counsel. However, this Order will not preclude the respondent police to take appropriate action if any crime is registered against the petitioner for commission of any cognizable offence. Consequently miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.