Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Police protection to implement civil court / High Court orders — Scope — Non-interference of police in purely civil disputes. Where the petitioners in W.P. No. 17690 of 2016 sought a writ of mandamus complaining that the police were not providing protection for implementation of an interim injunction granted by the High Court in C.M.A.M.P. No. 1091 of 2015 in C.M.A. No. 529 of 2015 (in respect of Ac. 323.232 cents in Sy. No. 387, Peddapanjani Revenue Village, Chittoor District), and the petitioners in W.P. No. 3731 of 2017 complained that the police (respondents 2 to 5) were interfering in a civil dispute relating to agricultural land of Ac. 323.00 in the same survey number and trying to evict them from their possession, the High Court, on perusal of record and counter of official respondents, noted: (i) the police authorities categorically stated that they were not interfering in the civil dispute between the parties; and (ii) they were ready to provide police protection for effective implementation of any court order produced by either party. Held, without going into further merits, both writ petitions were disposed of with directions: Police officials shall not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the parties. If any party produces a court order, it is the duty of the police officials to provide necessary protection to ensure effective implementation of such court order. No order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed. (Hindu Joint Family consisting of Enjeti Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.; N. Bhaskaraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., W.P. Nos. 17690 of 2016 & 3731 of 2017, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per Battu Devanand, J.)

Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Police protection to implement civil court / High Court orders — Scope — Non-interference of police in purely civil disputes.

Where the petitioners in W.P. No. 17690 of 2016 sought a writ of mandamus complaining that the police were not providing protection for implementation of an interim injunction granted by the High Court in C.M.A.M.P. No. 1091 of 2015 in C.M.A. No. 529 of 2015 (in respect of Ac. 323.232 cents in Sy. No. 387, Peddapanjani Revenue Village, Chittoor District), and the petitioners in W.P. No. 3731 of 2017 complained that the police (respondents 2 to 5) were interfering in a civil dispute relating to agricultural land of Ac. 323.00 in the same survey number and trying to evict them from their possession, the High Court, on perusal of record and counter of official respondents, noted:

(i) the police authorities categorically stated that they were not interfering in the civil dispute between the parties; and

(ii) they were ready to provide police protection for effective implementation of any court order produced by either party.

Held, without going into further merits, both writ petitions were disposed of with directions:

1. Police officials shall not interfere in the civil disputes pending between the parties.

2. If any party produces a court order, it is the duty of the police officials to provide necessary protection to ensure effective implementation of such court order.

No order as to costs; all pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

(Hindu Joint Family consisting of Enjeti Sreenivasa Rao & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors.; N. Bhaskaraiah & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., W.P. Nos. 17690 of 2016 & 3731 of 2017, decided on 05-12-2025 (AP), per Battu Devanand, J.)

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. W.P. No. 17690 of 2016 (Enjeti family)

• Petitioner: a Hindu Joint Family consisting of Enjeti Sreenivasa Rao, Enjeti Raghunatha Rao, Enjeti Seshagiri Rao, Enjeti Nagaraja Rao, Enjeti Narasimha Prasad, Enjeti Madhusudhana Rao and Enjeti Venkatramana Rao, represented through its manager.

• Relief:

  • Mandamus questioning inaction of respondents 2–4 (S.P., D.S.P., S.H.O.) in not providing police protection for implementation of:

    • Interim orders in C.M.A.M.P. No. 1091 of 2015 in C.M.A. No. 529 of 2015, dated:

      • 04.08.2015,

      • extended on 18.08.2015,

      • further extended on 04.09.2015.

  • Orders relate to Ac. 323.232 cents in Sy. No. 387, Peddapanjani Revenue Village, plaint schedule in O.S. No. 81 of 2013, II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

B. W.P. No. 3731 of 2017 (Bommalakunta villagers)

• Petitioners: Group of cultivators of Bommalakunta Village, Peddapanjani Mandal.

• They claim agricultural land of Ac. 323.00 in Sy. No. 387, Peddapanjani Mandal.

• Relief:

  • Mandamus declaring action of respondents 2–5 in:

    • interfering with their agricultural land and civil dispute,

    • trying to evict them from peaceful possession,
      as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.

  • Direction to respondents 2–5 not to interfere / not to evict them from Ac. 323.00 in Sy. No. 387.

C. Common field of dispute

• Both writs concern:

  • Sy. No. 387, Peddapanjani Mandal, Chittoor District;

  • Large extents (~Ac. 323);

  • Rival claims between:

    • Enjeti joint family; and

    • Local cultivators of Bommalakunta/Mattuganipalle.

III. ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether, under Article 226, the Court should direct the police to provide protection for implementation of High Court’s earlier interim orders (C.M.A. 529/2015 & C.M.A.M.P. 1091/2015).

2. Whether the police authorities have illegally interfered in a purely civil dispute about land in Sy. No. 387 and attempted to evict one set of parties, and whether such interference is without jurisdiction.

IV. COURT’S REASONING

1. Status of interim orders in C.M.A. No. 529/2015

   • In C.M.A.M.P. No. 1091 of 2015 in C.M.A. No. 529 of 2015, this Court:

     • Granted interim injunction on 04.08.2015;

     • Extended it on 18.08.2015 and 04.09.2015.

   • Subsequently, C.M.A. No. 529/2015 was disposed of.

   • Therefore, any enforcement is linked to the subsisting effect of those orders / final orders.

2. Police stand (official respondents)

   • Assistant Government Pleader (Home), on instructions, stated:

     • Police are not interfering in the civil dispute between the parties.

     • Police are ready to provide protection whenever any party produces a court order requiring implementation.

   • This position is reiterated in the counter-affidavit.

3. Reconciling both writ petitions

   • W.P. 17690/2016 complains of non-implementation of civil/High Court orders.

   • W.P. 3731/2017 complains of over-reach by police into a civil land dispute.

   • The Court recognizes:

     • The dispute is essentially civil — title/possession over Sy. No. 387.

     • Civil court / earlier High Court orders are the proper mechanisms to regulate possession and interim status.

     • Police cannot:

       • Decide ownership or right to possession; or

       • Use force to favour one side in a civil dispute.

     • Police must:

       • Refrain from interfering in civil disputes; but

       • Act to enforce judicial orders when shown and requested.

4. Reason for not entering merits of civil dispute

   • Given:

     • Clear stand of police that they do not interfere except to enforce orders; and

     • The pendency / existence of civil proceedings (O.S. 81/2013, earlier C.M.A. 529/2015),

   • The Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions without examining the deeper civil merits, by issuing general directions to:

     • Demarcate the limits of police conduct; and

     • Ensure enforceability of court orders.

V. OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS / RESULT

1. Direction to police re civil disputes

   “The police officials are directed not to interfere into the civil disputes pending between the parties herein.”

   • Police shall not:

     • Attempt to determine civil rights or possession;

     • Evict any party from the lands in Sy. No. 387 without due process of law;

     • Use police machinery to favour either side in the civil dispute.

2. Duty of police to implement court orders

   “If any party produce any Court order, then it is the duty of the police officials to provide protection for effective implementation of the Court orders.”

   • Once a valid and subsisting court order (injunction, status quo, police-aid direction, etc.) is produced:

     • Police must extend necessary protection to ensure compliance and effectiveness of that order.

3. Costs and miscellaneous petitions

   • Both writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

   • No order as to costs.

   • Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.

That is the full common order summary with the “practical takeaways” part removed.