Disposed

Kavadi Katamraju v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026WP/844/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A three-judge bench disposed of a writ petition challenging alleged police interference in a civil possession dispute. The court clarified that police cannot adjudicate civil titles and directed them not to interfere in the dispute except according to law, without adjudicating the underlying civil rights.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 and 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioners except in accordance with law; clarified that the order does not adjudicate title or possession.

Kavadi Katamraju Vs the State of Ap — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 15-09-2026 Date of uploading : 15-09-2026

¶2

APHC010015362023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3604] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 844/2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

KAVADI KATAMRAJU, C/O. LATE GANNIYYA, AGED 70 YEARS, R/O. D. NO.-9-71/5, THOTA VEEDHI, PRATHIPADU, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶8

KAVADI ANJI, S/O. KATAMRAJU, AGED 24 YEARS, RIO. D. NO. 9-71/5, THOTA VEEDHI, PRATHIPADU, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶9

KAVADI SIVA, C/O. KATAMRAJU, AGED 23 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 9-71/5, THOTA VEEDHI, PRATHIPADU, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶10

DEVARAKONDA RAJU, S/O. LATE NAGARAJU, AGED 20 YEARS, R/O. THOTA VEEDHI, PRATHIPADU, PRATHIPADU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , KAKINADA DISTRICT, AT KAKINADA.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR, KIRLAMPUDI POLICE STATION, KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, JAGGAMPETA POLICE STATION, JAGGAMPETA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶17

THE TAHSILDAR, , KIRLAMPUDI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in taking steps to demolish structures in total an extent of Ac. 0006 cents (each petitioner Ac.00-01.5 cents) in S. No.66/1Y of Jagapathinagaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District including dispossession from the said house site without recourse of law

¶20

¶21

SUN, J WP_844_2023

¶22

as illegal, principles of natural justice and consequently directing the respondents not to meddle with the said house site property of the petitioners in any respect and pass orders and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 to 5 not to dispossess the Petitioners from the said house site of total an extent Ac. 00-06 cents (each petitioner Ac.00-01.5 cents) in S. No.66/1Y of Jagapathinagaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District including demolition of structures and pass orders and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.SIVA NAGARJUNA SIDHADAPU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

¶32

SUN, J WP_844_2023

¶33

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶34

WRIT PETITION No: 844 OF 2023

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioners from the house site admeasuring Ac.0.06 cents in Survey No.66/1Y of Jagapathinagaram Village, Kirlampudi Mandal, Kakinada District.

¶37

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said house site, wherein they have erected a small hut for their livelihood. On 16.04.2021, respondent No.5 issued a possession certificate in their favour. It is further stated that on 03.01.2023, at the instance of some local politicians, respondent No.5 and his staff attempted to conduct a survey and demarcate the boundaries of the said land, without there being any supporting document. The petitioners resisted the said action and requested respondent No.5 not to interfere with their possession.

¶38

It is further contended that respondent No.5, without issuing any notice or initiating any proceedings in accordance with law, is interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the subject property, and that there is a threat of demolition of the house and dispossession from the house site. Though respondent Nos.1 to 4 have been arrayed as parties to the writ petition, no specific allegations are made against them.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed on record the written instructions of the Station House Officer, Kirlampudi Police Station, Kakinada District. According to the said instructions, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have not received any representation from the petitioners and have never interfered with their alleged peaceful

¶40

¶41

SUN, J WP_844_2023

¶42

possession and enjoyment. It is also stated that the dispute is purely civil in nature, that the police have no intention of interfering in the dispute, and that the police would act only in accordance with law.

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶44

Admittedly, no crime has been registered against the petitioners. It is also evident from the pleadings and the instructions placed on record that disputes of a civil nature are pending between the petitioners and other persons. The grievance projected before this Court essentially concerns interference with possession of the subject property.

¶45

It is well settled that the police have no authority to interfere in disputes which are purely civil in nature, except in accordance with law and where the circumstances otherwise warrant action within the scope of their statutory duties. The adjudication of civil rights and the resolution of disputes relating to title or possession fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil forum. The police cannot assume the role of an adjudicating authority or compel parties to settle a civil dispute through police intervention. Equally, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to adjudicate disputed questions of title or possession when an efficacious remedy before the competent civil forum is available.

¶46

In the present case, the specific stand of the respondent police is that they have neither interfered with the petitioners’ possession nor exerted pressure upon them to settle the alleged civil dispute. The said stand is recorded in the written instructions placed before this Court. In the absence of any material establishing unlawful police interference, no further direction against the police is warranted. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to make it clear that the respondent police shall not interfere

¶47

¶48

SUN, J WP_844_2023

¶49

in the civil dispute between the parties or compel either party to settle such dispute, except by acting strictly in accordance with law.

¶50

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of by making the position of law clear and by directing the concerned respondents to refrain from interfering in the civil dispute except in accordance with law.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.3 and 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes of the petitioners, if any, except in accordance with law. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as an adjudication upon the title, possession or any other civil rights of the parties in respect of the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶53

As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

SUNITHA GANDHAM, J

¶55

15.09.2026 knl

Kavadi Katamraju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavadi Katamraju v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases