Andhra Pradesh High Court Restrains Police From Meddling In Land Disputes | Police Have No Role In Settlement Of Civil Issues Under Any Guise Says Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, in a judgment dated May 16, 2025, closed a writ petition filed by an elderly petitioner concerning her alleged summons to the Pre Litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF) regarding a land dispute. The Court categorically held that the police have no role in the settlement of land disputes and directed the State authorities not to entertain such civil issues under any pretext. It further ordered that any efforts to resolve civil disputes, particularly land disputes, must be undertaken only through competent legal services authorities or civil courts. The Court concluded that involving the police in such matters leads to confusion and unnecessary litigation.
The writ petition was filed by a 74-year-old woman who claimed she was summoned by the Pre Litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF), Visakhapatnam, to resolve a land-related dispute involving her and private respondents. She contended that being a senior citizen suffering from cancer, she was subjected to undue pressure through police intervention aimed at achieving an amicable settlement. Her grievance revolved around being contacted by the police and directed to attend counseling sessions without any legal basis.
In response, the Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnem Police Station, submitted written instructions stating that PLCF calls were made only to initiate counseling and that there was no compulsion for the parties to attend if they chose not to. Furthermore, the Inspector of Police submitted a letter through the Government Pleader confirming that the counseling process was terminated as the petitioner had not shown interest in participating in an amicable resolution. It was noted that the matter was officially closed by the PLCF on May 14, 2025.
The petitioner challenged the legality of the entire process, asserting that the police acted beyond their jurisdiction by involving themselves in a civil dispute. She sought judicial intervention against the practice of summoning parties for pre-litigation settlement in cases purely of civil nature, such as disputes over land ownership or possession.
The State, through the Government Pleader for Home, defended the actions of the police by reiterating that the forum was intended to facilitate voluntary settlements and that no coercion was involved. It was stated that the police were not enforcing any decision or order but merely inviting the parties to participate in conciliatory efforts.
The controversy cantered on whether the police, acting in association with legal forums like the PLCF, could summon individuals for settlement of land disputes. The petitioner insisted that such actions amounted to overreach and infringed upon her civil liberties, especially given her age and medical condition.
The Court stated on the limited jurisdiction of the police in civil matters. "the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute." The judgment underlined the need for legal formalism and the exclusive domain of civil courts in such matters.
Referring to the applicable legal framework, the Court recorded that "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." By citing the relevant provisions of the CPC, the judgment reaffirmed the principle that jurisdiction over civil rights and property disputes lies solely with the civil judiciary.
The Court further clarified the role of legal services authorities, stating that "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." It observed that such bodies operate under a statutory framework and are authorized to facilitate legal redressal.
Significantly, the Court expressed concern over the proliferation of forums like the PLCF which may inadvertently encroach upon judicial functions. It stated that "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 use of the term "perplex" reflects the Court’s apprehension that litigants may be misled or confused about proper legal remedies.
The Court held that there was no lawful basis for involving the petitioner through the PLCF, particularly when she had declined participation. It found that the continuation of such proceedings, despite the petitioner's non-consent, amounted to an unnecessary extension of a civil issue into an administrative or policing domain.
The Court issued directions to the authorities. It recorded that "respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to entertain further civil issues like this under any name for settlement of the land dispute of the petitioner." This directive clearly restricts the State authorities, including the police and related conciliatory forums, from involving themselves in land disputes under the guise of pre-litigation or amicable settlement.
The Court stated that "with the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed." It also clarified that there would be "no order as to costs." In closing, the Court further noted that "as a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sreemannarayana Vattikuti, Advocate
Case Title: Smt Seerapu Shyamala v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010253542025
Case Number: WP No. 13086/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao
[Read/Download order]
