(Prayer: 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering in Civil disputes and in restraining the petitioner to enter the land in Sy. No. 317-3B admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.22 Cents in Gudavaluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, while allowing the 5th respondent and her men to enter the subject land is arbitrary, illegal, irregular, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of Indian Constitution, unjustified and unsustainable and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere in the Civil disputes of the petitioner with respect to subject land 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 to direct the Respondents not to interfere in the Civil disputes of the petitioner with respect to the land in Sy. No. 317-3B admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.22 Cents in Gudavaluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass)

1. This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with the civil disputes of the petitioner and restraining the petitioner from entering the land in Sy.No.317-3B, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.22 cents, situated at Gudavaluru Village, Kondapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, while allowing respondent No.5 and her men to enter the subject land, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner in respect of the subject land.

2. Case of the petitioner is, originally, the subject property belonged to one Chimmili Lakshmi Narasimhaiah, who executed an agreement of sale in favour of one B. Malakondaiah on 25.06.1982. Pursuant to the said agreement of sale and upon receipt of entire sale consideration, the subject property was delivered to the family of one B. Malakondaiah, and after his death, the legal heirs of one Malakondaiah requested the legal heirs of Chimmili Lakshmi Narasimhaiah to execute a registered sale deed in their favour, however, they evaded execution of the sale deed on one pretext or another. Therefore, the legal heirs of Malakondaiah are constrained to file O.S.No.254 of 2015 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali seeking specific performance on the foot of agreement of sale dated 25.06.1982 and the said suit is pending and during pendency of the said suit, the legal heirs of one B. Malakondaiah executed an agreement of sale along with possession dated 02.11.2015 in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land and the petitioner has been in possession over the subject land. While so, due to certain disturbances caused by the legal heirs of Chimmili Lakshmi Narasimhaiah, in the year 2016, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kondapuram Mandal, placed the subject property in the dispute register and directed both the parties, including the petitioner, not to enter the subject land. In view of the said directions, the petitioner did not enter the land, however, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, on 20.07.2026, one Nelapati Papayya, at the instance of respondent No.5, entered the subject land along with JCB and started leveling the land.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed written instructions of respondent No.4 and in which, it is stated that having received report from the petitioner, respondent police called both the parties for preliminary enquiry and after due enquiry, it has come to light that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.5 in respect of the subject land and a civil suit is also pending. It is further stated that as the matter is purely civil nature, respondent police have neither interfered with the civil dispute nor restraining the petitioner to enter into the subject land.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

5. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.5 in respect of the subject land. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that it is well settled that police cannot interfere in civil disputes and the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and further, when the dispute between two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. It is also settled that in the scheme of Constitution of India, duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to judiciary and police have no such power and involvement of police in a pending civil dispute or potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the provisions of the police.

6. As per the version of the respondent police, they have neither interfered with the civil disputes nor restraining the petitioner to enter into the subject land.

7. Since respondent No.4 submitted written instructions stating that they are not interfering in the civil disputes which are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition may be disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioner and respondent No.5.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 not to interfere with the civil disputes, if any, pending between the petitioner and respondent No.5. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.