Police Should Refrain From Entering Into Land Dispute Under Guise Of Amicable Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that police authorities should refrain from interfering into civil disputes pertaining to land, under the guise of amicable settlement between parties.Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in his order said,“…when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that police authorities should refrain from interfering into civil disputes pertaining to land, under the guise of amicable settlement between parties.
Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao in his order said,
“…when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes.”
Background
The Court was dealing with a writ petition claiming that the petitioner, a lady aged 74 years and suffering from cancer, was called for Pre-Litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF), Vishakapatnam, with regard to a land dispute existing between her and Sri Kallepalli Venkata Satya Naga Krishnam Raju (Respondent 4), Sri Penmetsa Gopala Raju (Respondent 5), and Sri Mudunuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju (Respondent 6).
The Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnem Police Station, had submitted that PLCF calls were made to the parties for counselling however, participation in the counselling was optional and the parties had the leverage to not attend the same. Hence, it was submitted that the Commissioner of Police (Respondent 2) and the Station House Officer (Respondent 3) had no role to play in that regard. The Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnem Police Station further submitted a letter to the Government Pleader stating that the counselling procedure was closed by PLCF on 14.05.2025 as the petitioner was unwilling to attend for amicable settlement of the land dispute.
Emphasising on the need of the police authorities to refrain from involving themselves in civil disputes under the guise of amicable settlement, the Court held,
“This kind of establishing or creating PLCF calls for settlement of land dispute would lead to multifarious litigation and create a kind of perplex in the minds of the litigants and mushroom further litigations.”
The Court further directed Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 to not “entertain further civil issues like this under any name for settlement of the land dispute of the petitioner.”
The petition was accordingly closed.
Case Title: Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others