Police Not Competent To Dispossess Or Evict Persons From Property: AP High Court

AP High Court, in an latest order, has recorded a significant submission by the police department clarifying that law enforcement agencies do not possess the legal competence to dispossess or evict individuals from properties. Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, while disposing of a writ petition alleging police interference in a civil dispute, observed that the police must act strictly according to the law and noted their undertaking regarding the lack of jurisdiction in eviction matters.

The petitioners approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to prevent police officials from interfering with their peaceful possession of fish tanks in Pamulapadu village. They contended that the police, at the behest of a private respondent, were threatening them with false criminal cases and attempting to disturb their settled possession of the lands.

The primary question before the court was whether the police were illegally interfering in a dispute of a civil nature concerning the possession of fish tanks. The court was also called upon to determine if the police actions were limited to maintaining law and order or extended to unauthorized dispossession.

Allegations Of Police Interference In Civil Dispute

The petitioners argued that they held absolute right and possession over the subject fish tanks and had not leased the property to any third party. They alleged that the respondent police were acting in a biased manner to facilitate the interests of a private individual, thereby overstepping their mandate by interfering in a purely civil matter.

Police Intervention Aimed At Maintaining Law And Order

The Government Pleader for Home countered these allegations by submitting written instructions, stating that the police intervention was purely preventive. It was submitted that the police received a '112 Free Dial' call regarding a quarrel between two factions over the non-payment for fish feed, which necessitated the deputation of staff to pacify the situation and prevent a breach of peace.

Registration Of Criminal Cases Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The court noted that the police had registered two separate FIRs following violent clashes at the site. The first case, Crime No. 96 of 2026, was registered under Sections 118(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the BNS following reports of blade injuries caused during an attack. A second case, Crime No. 97 of 2026, was registered under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 79 read with 3(5) of the BNS regarding threats and attacks during fish harvesting.

Police Admit Lack Of Competence To Evict Or Dispossess

A crucial aspect of the proceedings was the specific averment made by the police in their written instructions regarding their legal boundaries. The respondent authorities explicitly stated before the court that they are not the competent authorities to evict or dispossess the petitioners from the fish tanks, effectively conceding that such powers rest with civil courts or designated revenue authorities.

"The respondent police are not competent authorities either to dispossess or evict the petitioners from the subject fish tanks in question."

Disposal Of Writ Petition Based On Police Submission

In view of the categorical submission by the police that they would not interfere in the civil possession and were only concerned with the criminal investigation, the court found that no further directions were necessary. The bench held that the police must continue to act strictly in accordance with the law while the petitioners remain at liberty to pursue their legal remedies regarding the property dispute.

Court Records Written Instructions And Closes Petition

The court directed that the written instructions submitted by the police be placed on record to hold them to their word. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of at the stage of admission, with the court clarifying that the police's role is limited to the investigation of the registered crimes and the maintenance of public order.

The ruling reinforces the principle that police authorities cannot adjudicate civil property disputes or act as eviction agents. By recording the police department's own admission of a lack of competence to dispossess individuals, the court has provided a legal shield for citizens against unauthorized police high-handedness in land matters.

Date of Decision: 02 June 2026