WP/5664/2026 of V K MANI Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 30 August 2026

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 including the interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners with regard to their property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.297/12 of Tiruchanoor Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District.

2. Case of the petitioners is thus:

In collusion with respondent No.6, respondent nos.3 to 5 have been interfering with the civil disputes and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners with regard to the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.52 cents in survey No.297/12 of Tiruchanoor Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati and trying to dispossess the petitioners. The subject land originally belongs to one Sri Pedda Krishnamacharyulu and his son Anantacharyulu and they alienated the same to one K.C.Srinivasacharyulu vide sale deed bearing document No.921 of 1946, dated 08.05.1946 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. Thereafter, the property devolved upon his sole legal heir K.C.Tirumalachari and after his death, it was devolved upon his legal heirs K.C.Sundarachari, K.C.Ananthachari and K.C.Rangaswamy. K.C.Sundarachari, his son K.Narasimhachari and K.C.Ananthachari died intestate leaving behind

SUN, J WP_5664_2026

K.C.Rangachari and he became owner of the said property. After his death, his surviving legal heirs i.e., son of K.C.Murali and grand daughters K.C.Anusha and K.C.Nisha became absolute owners and obtained ryotwari pattas from the Inam Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor vide proceedings in S.R. No.29/13 IDT No.205.2012 dated 17.06.2013 and from them, the petitioners purchased the subject property vide sale deed dated 17.08.2015. Accordingly, their names were mutated in the revenue records and RDO also issued proceedings dated 22.02.2019. Thereafter, mutation order issued by the Tahsildar is set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The petitioners have no knowledge about the said order and after coming to know the same, they filed W.P. No.20626 of 2023 and the same is pending before this Court. While the things stood thus, respondent Nos.3 to 5 have been trying to interfere in civil disputes in collusion with respondent No.6 ignoring the interim order dated 18.08.2023.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader filed written instructions issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchanur Police Station, Tirupati stating that neither the petitioners nor respondent approached respondent No.4 seeking assistance for conducting any enquiry or taking action against the respondents for their alleged high handed behavior and since the dispute is purely civil in nature and the matter is pending before the Commissioner of Appeals, Vijayawada, the police have no jurisdiction to interfere into the matte and they never interfered in the matter.

SUN, J WP_5664_2026

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Coordinate bench of this Court had disposed of the writ petition directing the police not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners at the behest of respondent No.6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order and since notice has not been served on respondent No.6 herein, he had preferred Writ Appeal No.448 of 2026 and the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the matter, to decide the matter afresh, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Respondent No.6 filed counter refuting the averments made in the petition, wherein inter alia contended that the writ petition is not maintainable not only being devoid of merits besides that writ petition is liable to be dismissed in limine, the petitioners suppressed several material facts which have direct impact on this writ petition and in the entire petition, there is no averment with regard to the exact date and time of the alleged threat and dispossession and in fact, the petitioners were never in possession over the subject property and the predecessors in title of this respondent have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for several decades. Further, original Inamdars Madhabhushi Varadacharyulu and Madhabhushi Gopalachartyulu alienated the subject land vide sale deed dated 25.11.1950 to Govinda Swamy and in turn, the said Govinda Swamy alienated the same to T.Venugopal vide sale deed dated 23.12.1969 and after his death, legal heirs of T.Venugopal alienated the subject land to one D.Doraswamy vide

SUN, J WP_5664_2026

sale deed dated 11.02.1982 and thereafter respondent purchased the land vide sale deed dated 12.02.2004. Further, the petitioners are attempting to create rights over valuable Inam lands by relying upon fabricated and non existent Ryotwari Pattas and after examining the matter, Revenue Divisional Officer rightly declared that the pattas were non existence and consequential implementation in revenue records was also unsustainable, and respondent No.6 obtained information under RTI Act which shows absence of corresponding entries in Special Registers and the mutation files were also not traceable, whereas this respondent has strong record showing his title and possession and the petitioners have filed this writ petition by suppressing, the material facts and obtained order dated 06.03.2026 behind back of this respondent and as such, respondent No.6 filed W.A. No..448 of 2026. Further, a batch of writ petition Nos.21508 of 2022, 21510 of 2022, 37162 of 2022 and 20626 of 2023 are pending for adjudication and the writ petition involves serious disputed questions of title, possession, genuineness of documents and rival claims over immovable property and therefore, disputed factual issues cannot be adjudicated in this proceedings and petitioners have an effective alternative remedy before the competent civil court, and with other formal denials prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

SUN, J WP_5664_2026

7. As per the version of the respondent No.6, several writ petitions are pending on the file of this Court, the petitioners failed to mention the details of the said writ petitioners, came up with unclean hands and they are not entitled for any relief. Admittedly, details of total cases are not furnished in this petition. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners also fairly submitted that several writ petitions are pending on the file of this Court and since the respondent police have been involving in the civil litigation, they filed this petition.

8. Admittedly, there are civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.6 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.

9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the police would not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and

SUN, J WP_5664_2026

respondent No.6. Since respondent No.4 submitted that written instructions stating that they are not interfering in the civil disputes which are pending between the petitioner and respondent No.6, 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 petitioners and respondent No.6.

10. In the result, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes, pending between the petitioners and respondent No.6. 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