POLICE – INTERFERENCE IN CIVIL DISPUTES – HELD, IMPERMISSIBLE
Police – Interference in civil dispute – Petitioners complaining that official respondents 1 to 3 are interfering with ongoing civil disputes between petitioners and unofficial respondents, notwithstanding pendency of civil proceedings in E.P. No.50 of 2022 in O.S. No.246 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli – Learned counsel for petitioners produced photographs showing concerned police officer interacting with parties – Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stating that the visit of Sub-Inspector was in furtherance to Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) petition filed by 4th respondent, who is admittedly a party in E.P., and that the grievance was closed treating the matter as civil in nature and advising the party to approach appropriate forum –
Held: There is no cavil of doubt that civil disputes should not be interfered with by the police as held by this Court in B. Vaheeda v. State of A.P., 2020 Law Suit (AP) 398 – Since there is no more res integra on the above, it is apposite to direct that the official respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioners and unofficial respondents when evidently E.P.No.50 of 2022 in O.S.No.246 of 2015 is pending on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli. –
Direction issued: Official respondents directed not to interfere with civil disputes pending between petitioners and unofficial respondents – Writ Petition disposed of – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed.
APHC010531342025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3548]
FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27163/2025
Between:
1. DULLA APPALA RAJU,, S/O. LATE SIMHADRI. AGED 43 YEARS,
CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.NO. 10-11, VENKATA RAMANA
PETA. HIO GOPALAPRUAM POST ANAKAPALLI MANDAL
2. DULLA NOOKA RAJU,, S/O.LATE SIMHADRI. AGED 39 YEARS,
CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D. NO.2-21. VENKATA RAMANA
PETA, H/O. GOPALAPRUAM POST, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL
3. DULLA TATA RAO,, S/O. LATE SIMHADRI, AGED 47 YEARS,
CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT RESIDING AT D. NO.3-5.
VENKATA RAMANA PETA, H/O. GOPALAPRUAM POST.
ANAKAPALLI MANDAL.
4. BOBBAN SURESH., SLO. LATE DERMUDU, AGE 36 YEARS,
CULTIVIATION, RESIDING AT D. NO. 2-24, VENKATA RAMANA
PETA, H/O. GOPALAPRUAM POST ANAKAPALLI MANDAL,
ANKAPALLI.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHR PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI RURAL POLICE
STATION, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. MALLA BHAGYALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATA NOOKWESWARA
RAO, AGE 53 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 6-15-
5, MALLA VEEDHI, ANAKAPALLI.
5. EDUMUDI SREE RAM, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA RAO, AGE 58
YEARS, RESIDIN GAT D. NO.9-68, 8TH STREET. SARADA
NAGAR, KOTTHURU, ANAKAPALLI
6. DADI VENKATA APPA RAO, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM, AGE 44
2025:APHC:41437
2
YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO 20-92-19/8, SUNKARA METTA
ROAD, SATYANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE STREET,
ANAKAPALLI.
7. MOLLETI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.SURYANARAYNA, AGE 42
YEARS, RESIDING A JMMALADA VILLAGE, MUNAGAPAKA
MANDAL.ANKAPALLI.
8. ADARI TARAKA RAM, S/O.LATE RAMA RAO, HINDU. AGE 45
YEARS, RESIDING AT 019-2-52, DASARI GEDDA ROAD,
NIDANAM DODDI. GAVARAPALEM, ANAKAPALLI
...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 to declare the action of the official respondent Nos.1 to 3
in interfering over the ongoing civil disputes without observing the
pendency of the civil suits in E.P.No.50 of 2022 in O.S.No.246 of 2015
on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, thereby not allowing
the petitioners herein into the suit schedule property unauthorizedly as
without having any authority is as illegal and arbitrary and violation of
Fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed in the Constitution of
India and consequently direct the respondent police not to interfere over
the civil disputes pending with the parties connected to E.P.No.50 of
2022 in O.S.No.246 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli and thereby to allow the petitioners herein into the suit
schedule property situated in Sy.No.121/17 admeasuring to an extent of
Ac.28-14 cents (Item no.1), Sy.No.117/4 to an extent of 15 ½ cents (Item
no.2) and Sy.No.117/4 to an extent of Ac.0.6 cents (Item no.3) situated
in Gopalapuram Village, Sabbavaram Sub District, Ankapalle District
except by following due procedure established by the law.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.P NANILU NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
2025:APHC:41437
3
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction
more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus
declaring the action of the official respondent Nos.1 to 3 in
interfering over the ongoing civil disputes without observing
the pendency of the civil suits in E.P.No.50 of 2022 in
O.S.No.246 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli, thereby not allowing the petitioners herein into
the suit schedule property, unauthorizedly, as without
having any authority is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of
Fundamental Rights of the petitioners guaranteed in the
Constitution of India and consequently, direct the
respondent police not to interfere over the civil disputes
pending with the parties connected to E.P.No.50 of 2022 in
O.S.No.246 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Anakapalli and thereby to allow the petitioners herein into
the suit schedule property situated in Sy.No.121/17
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.28-14 cents (Item no.1),
Sy.No.117/4 to an extent of 15 ½ cents (Item no.2) and
Sy.No.117/4 to an extent of Ac.0.6 cents (Item no.3)
situated in Gopalapuram Village, Sabbavaram Sub District,
Ankapalle District except by following due procedure
established by the law.”
2. Heard, Sri P. Nanilu Naidu, learned, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of petitioners and Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Government Pleader
for Home.
3. Grievance of the Writ Petitioner is that the official respondent Nos.1
to 3 are interfering with the ongoing civil disputes between the petitioners
and unofficial respondents without minding that a civil proceedings are
2025:APHC:41437
4
pending in E.P.No.50 of 2022 in O.S.No.246 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.
4. To substantiate his arguments that police are interfering with the
civil disputes, learned counsel for the petitioners drawn attention of this
Court to the photographs showing concern police officer interacting with
the parties.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Home, in pursuance to the lunch motion, has obtained instructions which
shows that in furtherance to the Public Grievance Reddressal System
petition filed by the Respondent No.4, who is admittedly a party in the EP
proceedings, Sub-Inspector of Police concerned has visited the said
place since petition should be acted upon when once it is lodged. He
further asserts that there is no truth in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the official respondents are interfering with
the civil disputes pending between both the parties. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader also projects saying that the official respondents are
well within their limits and the said issue was closed by duly intimating the
4
th respondent that the issue is civil in nature and advised to approach
appropriate forum to settle the dispute.
6. The written instructions so produced reveals that the grievance of
the petitioners in PGRS petition is addressed through a letter by the SubInspector of Police, dated 29.09.2025 that, the petition is closed as ‘civil
2025:APHC:41437
5
nature’. There is no cavil of doubt that the civil dispute should not be
interfered by the police as held by this Court in B. Vaheeda v. State of
A.P.
1
. Since there is no more res integra on the above, it is apposite to
direct that the official respondents not to interfere with the civil disputes
between the petitioners and un-official respondents, when evidently
E.P.No.50 of 2022 in O.S.No.246 of 2015 is pending on the file of the
learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.
7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________
TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA, J.
Date:03.10.2025
ARB
1
2020 Law Suit (AP) 398
2025:APHC:41437
6
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA
Writ Petition No.27163 of 2025
Date: 03.10.2025
ARB
2025:APHC:41437
