Police Have No Role in Private Property Disputes, Allahabad HC Reiterates; Warns of Contempt for Violations
The Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench disposed of a writ petition over a family land dispute, directing police and executive authorities to strictly stay out of private civil property matters and warning that departures will invite departmental and contempt proceedings.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, disposed of a writ petition filed by an 85-year-old woman and another petitioner who alleged that police were siding with private respondents in a family land dispute and obstructing lawful construction on their property. While the Bench found no case warranting Article 226 intervention in favour of the petitioners on merits, it used the occasion to consolidate and restate the settled position that police officers, Sub-Divisional Magistrates, District Magistrates, and other executive authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes over title, possession, or boundaries of immovable property between private parties. Any deviation, the Bench cautioned, may attract departmental action as well as contempt proceedings.
The Dispute Before the Lucknow Bench
The petitioners, Indra Pati and another, approached the court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking two mandamus directions: that the opposite parties not interrupt their peaceful possession over the land in dispute, and that the opposite parties not harass them without an interim order from a court of law.
On a reading of the writ petition, the Bench found the entire matter rooted in a family dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents, with a civil suit already pending. The petitioners could not demonstrate why this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should be invoked in their favour. The petition therefore did not clear the threshold for substantive relief.
However, the Bench isolated a distinct and serious aspect: the petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner, aged over 85 years, was being continuously harassed by the police, and that the police were openly siding with the private respondents — allegedly in collusion — creating hindrance in the construction being raised by the petitioners. The Bench chose not to examine the collusion allegation directly, noting that doing so would trigger consequences such as FIR filings against the private respondents or the erring police officers. Instead, it addressed the broader legal position on police conduct in civil property disputes.
The Legal Question: When Can Police Act in a Property Dispute?
The Bench stated the governing principle plainly: police authorities and executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes relating to title, possession, or boundaries of immovable property between private parties. The only permissible scope of police action is to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order, as provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, or earlier under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Where a grievance arises from a private property dispute, the Bench held, the matter falls squarely within the domain of competent Civil Courts. Police and revenue or executive authorities cannot act as adjudicatory bodies or assist one party in dispossessing the other without a specific order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Line of Precedents the Bench Consolidated
The Bench drew upon a chain of its own earlier decisions and Government Orders to show that this position is not new.
In Parmatma Saran & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 3263 of 2020, decided on 31 January 2020, Neutral Citation 2020:AHC:21481-DB), a Division Bench had held that a writ petition which in substance seeks a direction against private persons interfering in peaceful possession, where those private parties have not been impleaded, is not maintainable under Article 226. That Bench had also relied on a Government Order dated 16 September 2015 issued by the Chief Secretary, U.P., directing that no administrative order shall be passed on miscellaneous applications in matters of immovable property pending between private parties or where courts have passed interim orders, with strict penal action for violations.
In Suman Singh v. District Magistrate and Others (Writ-C No. 12310 of 2022, decided on 20 October 2022, Neutral Citation 2022:AHC:176795-DB, reported as 2022 SCC OnLine All 720), a Division Bench dealt with a situation where revenue and police authorities had effected dispossession on 7 November 2020 despite civil suits pending and interim injunction orders operating. The Bench held such administrative intervention in a purely private title and possession dispute to be wholly without jurisdiction. It referenced the Government Order dated 1 December 2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. (No. 491/Writ/6-Pu-3-2014-2(94)P/2014), itself issued in the backdrop of directions given in Writ-C No. 43627 of 2014 (Sayeed Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors.). That Government Order directed that in immovable property disputes between private parties where civil suits are pending or interim orders have been passed, “only the competent Civil Court has the authority to adjudicate upon and pass orders in such disputes of civil nature.”
In Prem Lata Maurya v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 1266 of 2023, decided on 16 February 2023), this Court directed the Director General of Police, U.P., to issue a fresh circular reminding all police personnel of earlier instructions. Pursuant to that direction, the D.G.P., U.P., issued Circular No. 10/2023 dated 11 March 2023. The Circular states that police have no role in deciding title or possession disputes between private parties; that any complaint regarding a land or property dispute must be forwarded immediately to the concerned Executive Magistrate or Revenue Authorities; that police personnel shall not, on their own, deliver possession to any party or evict any person in a civil dispute; and that action under Sections 107, 116, and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be taken only where there is imminent apprehension of breach of peace, strictly following prescribed procedure.
In Phoolmati v. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 14257 of 2024), the Court had deprecated the practice of Sub-Divisional Magistrates passing orders directing vacation of premises in pending civil suits without following due process.
Finally, in Suresh Kumar Gangwar & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-C No. 28828 of 2016, decided on 5 July 2016, Neutral Citation 2016:AHC:99893-DB, reported as 2016 SCC OnLine All 1558), the Court examined the scope of Sections 144 and 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that Executive Magistrates must act strictly within those parameters, solely for preservation of public peace and not for adjudication of title or civil possession. District Authorities have no right to interfere in private property disputes unless directed by a competent Civil Court.
Directions Issued by the Bench
Drawing these threads together, the Bench directed all police officers, District Magistrates, Sub-Divisional Magistrates, and other executive authorities to strictly adhere to three instruments: the Government Order dated 1 December 2014 (No. 491/Writ/6-Pu-3-2014-2(94)P/2014); the Government Order dated 16 September 2015; and the D.G.P. Circular dated 11 March 2023.
The Bench made clear that any deviation from these instruments shall be viewed seriously and may invite departmental as well as contempt proceedings. It also directed police authorities to ensure that no party is allowed to take the law into their own hands, and that peace must be maintained without favouring any side in a civil dispute.
Counsel for the petitioners were Sachin Kumar, Abhinav Sachan, Diship Kumar, Piyush Agnihotri, and Shailesh Sachan. The State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.
Outcome
The writ petition was disposed of. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority or court for redressal of their grievances. No substantive relief on the merits of the property dispute was granted by the Bench.