Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9179/2020 of Devineni Satyanarayana Vs State of AP on 30 August 2026
for orders : Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026 Date of uploading : 01-09-2026 APHC010149842020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 9179 OF
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement : 31-08-2026
Date of uploading : 01-09-2026
APHC010149842020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 9179 OF 2020
Between:
Devineni Satyanarayana, S/o Venkatarama Naidu, aged about 65 years, R/o. D.No.28-1428/2B, Ramnagar Colony, Chittoor.
...Petitioner
AND
1. State of AP, through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor.
3. The Station House Officer,
II Town Police Station, Chittoor.
4. G Ramamurthy alias Pillikannu Ramamurthy, S/o C.R.Venkatamuni, aged about 60 years, Money lender, R/o Opposite to Municipal Slaughter House, Hospital Road, Chittoor.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: V S R ANJANEYALU
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following order:
SUN, J
WP_9179_2020
THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION No: 9179 OF 2020
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in respect of land in an extent of 152.21 Sq.yds in sy. No.392/1 of Kannannaiah Naidu Colony, Chittoor Municipality.
2. Case of the petitioner is, originally, the subject property belonged to 1) Smt.Gulabjoan W/o.S.M.B.Ghouse, Madanapalle, Chittoor District,
2) D.Ramakrishna, 3) D.Satyanarayana and 4) D.Jagannadham, sons of Venkatramanaidu of Chittoor, petitioner and his son Devineni Naveen Kumar purchased land in an extent of 152.21 Sq.yds in survey No.392/1 (near door No.26-180) of Kannannaiah Naidu Colony of Chittoor District vide registered sale deed dated 16.11.2009 for a valuable sale consideration, made certain constructions in some extent of land. Further, respondent No.4 has got an eye on the subject property and by virtue of the political influence, respondent No.3 called the petitioner to the police station and mounting pressure to accept the terms of the respondent No.4 to alienate the subject property. Further, respondent No.3 frequently sending constables to his house and on 18.05.2020, respondent No.3 directed the petitioner to come to the police station, till settling the matter with the respondent No.4. Having no other alternative, the petitioner submitted a representation dated
SUN, J WP_9179_2020
18.05.2020 to the respondent No.2 and having promised to take appropriate action, respondent No.2 did not give any instructions to the respondent No.3.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed written instructions of respondent No.3 and in which, it is stated that no representation, complaint or report has been received either from the petitioner or against the petitioner in connection with the alleged dispute, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is purely civil in nature, the police have no intention to interfere in any civil dispute and have not interfered with the dispute in the present case and that the police will act only in accordance with law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
5. Admittedly, no crime is registered against the petitioner and as per the petitioner and respondent No.3, civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. 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
SUN, J WP_9179_2020
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 pressurizing the petitioner to settle the disputes.
7. Since respondent No.3 submitted written instructions stating that they are not interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4, 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.
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 not to interfere with the civil disputes, if any, pending between the petitioner and respondent No.4. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 31.08.2026 knl