Andhra Pradesh high court bars police from meddling in land disputes
Vijayawada: Stating that police have no authority to intervene in civil land disputes, Andhra Pradesh high court, in a strong rebuke to Visakhapatnam police, criticised the practice of summoning individuals involved in civil disputes for counselling under the so-called 'pre-litigation council forum (PLCF).
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
Justice Y Lakshmana Rao ruled that land disputes fall strictly under the jurisdiction of civil courts, as per Sections 9 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, while emphasising that resolution mechanisms such as the state legal services authority, district legal services authorities, and mandal-level bodies are the only authorised platforms to mediate in such cases.
The order came after a 74-year-old petitioner challenged Visakhapatnam police's repeated summons to attend PLCF sessions regarding a land case which was already under trial in a civil court.
The petitioner, citing ill health and legal overreach, argued that police pressure was unlawful. The court sided with him, condemning the police for attempting to mediate in civil matters and warned that such actions only escalate disputes.
The HC further ordered that police should not attempt to resolve civil disputes under any name or platform, including the PLCF.
In similar cases, the high court also intervened in Prakasam and Palnadu districts after petitioners complained of police coercion to withdraw ongoing civil cases, including a property dispute and a financial recovery suit. The court directed local police not to pressurise citizens into withdrawing legally filed cases.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Plea in HC against Rayagada collector's 2-month entry ban against Patkar, 24 others
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday began hearing a petition challenging an order issued by the Rayagada collector on June 4, which prohibits activist Medha Patkar and 24 others from entering or staying in the district for two months. The ban was imposed ahead of a public meeting scheduled for June 5 at Hatpada field in Sunger under Kashipur block, where Patkar and other activists were expected to protest against proposed bauxite mining in the Sijimali hills. Citing law and order concerns, collector Parul Patwari acted on a report from the SP stating that the presence of the group might disturb public peace and hinder administrative functioning. The matter reached the HC through a petition filed by Dr Randall Sequeira, a Bhawanipatna-based medical practitioner who was among those barred. Sequeira contended that the order severely hampers his ability to provide essential medical services to tribal communities in Rayagada and Kalahandi, where he has been offering free healthcare for years. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Afraaz Suhail argued that the prohibition was arbitrary, disproportionate and violated constitutional rights. He highlighted that the planned protest was a daylong event, and imposing a two-month district-wide ban not only lacks justification but reflects "non-application of mind" by authorities. Taking note of it, Justice S K Panigrahi sought responses from the Rayagada collector and SP. Additional govt advocate Debashish Nayak was directed to obtain necessary instructions. The matter has been posted for further hearing on Tuesday. The petition asserts that equating peaceful protest in a scheduled area with a threat to public peace is flawed reasoning. It alleges that the administration's approach overlooks the nuanced balance between environmental concerns, indigenous rights and development policies. Sequeira maintained he has no links to any protest and fears the order unjustly tarnishes his record while depriving tribals of crucial healthcare services.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Only urgent cases allowed during civil court vacations: HC
Dehradun: The Uttarakhand high court's (HC) senior judge Manoj Tiwari , presiding over a single-judge bench, rejected a petition seeking to request the lower court to hear an appeal during the summer vacation. The case originated when Nitin Arora filed for a permanent prohibitory injunction and a mandatory injunction. On June 5, with the Dehradun civil courts closed for summer holidays, he filed an appeal under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, along with an application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil). The district judge declined the request, citing a lack of urgency to justify a vacation hearing. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the HC. Rule 13 stipulates that courts shall not hear cases on gazetted holidays unless both parties consent, except for urgent matters that require immediate attention. In the districts of Dehradun, Haridwar, Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar, one civil judge (junior division) and one civil judge (senior division) remain available on rotation throughout the vacation period. In other districts, a designated official is appointed to handle urgent cases. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cervecería Nacional CFD: Calcula cuánto podrías ganar invirtiendo solo $100 Empieza a invertir Undo The HC emphasised that while the proviso to rule 13 allows civil courts to consider urgent matters during holidays, it does not confer an automatic right for litigants. The determination of urgency rests with the civil court's discretion. In its June 19 order, the court upheld the previous ruling by the district and sessions court, Dehradun, and concluded that the district judge had acted within their authority when finding insufficient urgency for a vacation hearing. The court found no grounds to interfere with that decision and dismissed the petition accordingly.
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Sex harassment FIR lodged against sports head, HC told
Mumbai: The state on Friday informed Bombay high court that Kherwadi police station, Bandra East, registered an FIR against the president of a sports body on a complaint of sexual harassment by a woman athlete. The FIR followed Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale's direction on Wednesday to the police-in-charge to record her statement and "take appropriate action in accordance with the law, including registration of FIR, against Mr... and others found involved, if a cognisable offence is made out against them". The state's advocate, Vishal Thadani, informed that an FIR was registered on Thursday. The HC was hearing a petition by Mixed Martial Arts India to direct the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) to grant it recognition. Since the IOA granted recognition to the Mixed Martial Arts Sports Federation of India, the Asian Mixed Martial Arts Association recognised only it. In these circumstances, the petitioner's athletes are unable to participate in the first Asian Youth Championship in Bahrain between June 25 and 28. The rival federation submitted documents, including screenshots of Instagram texts between the petitioner's president and an athlete. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "A plain reading of the messages demonstrates sexual overtures being made by Mr... to the said woman athlete," the judges noted. They noticed a woman crying in court. Federation advocate Adil Parsurampuria said she was "the athlete concerned". The judges said "she had a story to tell. The woman athlete informed us she was being sexually harassed and suffered great anguish at the hands of Mr... She was compelled to reply to his Instagram and WhatsApp messages, and if she refused, she was threatened she would not be permitted to participate in any sport..." The woman complained to various authorities with proof of harassment, "but her every attempt was thwarted, and she was left to run from pillar to post for redressal of her grievance". The judges were "shocked" to hear her statements, adding it is "extremely unfortunate" that neither the petitioner, federation or IOA stood by the woman nor have taken steps "to provide succour to her". The petitioner's advocate, Abhishek Upadhyay, said the president shall "step down from his position". "We accept the said statement as an undertaking given to this court," the judges said. To the judge's query, advocates Sanjeev Sawant and Heramb Kadam informed that IOA has a POSH (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) committee in place, and if a complaint is received, it would take action. Parsurampuria said in national interest, the federation shall select 5 athletes of the petitioner to participate in the championship. On Friday, judges refused to expunge observations against the president.
