Police Lack Authority To Adjudicate Civil Disputes, Must Refer Parties To Competent Civil Court Or ADR: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has observed that the police lack the power or authority to act as a Civil Court or to adjudicate civil disputes between the parties.Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the police cannot adjudicate civil disputes relating to title, possession, boundary, or encroachment of land and it can only refer parties in civil disputes to a competent civil court or ADR...
The Kerala High Court has observed that the police lack the power or authority to act as a Civil Court or to adjudicate civil disputes between the parties.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the police cannot adjudicate civil disputes relating to title, possession, boundary, or encroachment of land and it can only refer parties in civil disputes to a competent civil court or ADR for resolution of their disputes.
“Neither Cr.P.C/BNSS nor the Police Act nor any other law governing the powers and duties of police confers the police the power to adjudicate the disputed question relating to title, possession, boundary, encroachment, etc. No doubt, the police can investigate the allegations in a complaint which discloses a criminal offence, but they do not have the power and authority to act as a civil court to adjudicate the civil dispute set out in the complaint. They are bound to relegate the parties to resolve the civil dispute through a competent civil court or duly constituted ADR Forum. “
As per the facts, the petitioner who claims to in possession of some land, built a dwelling house and a boundary wall demarcating his property. The respondent filed a complaint before the Station House officer (SHO) against the petitioner alleging that he had encroached upon her property for building the wall. On inquiry, the SHO found that the petitioner encroached upon a piece of land belonging to the respondent while constructing the wall.
The SHO sent a letter to the petitioner instructing him to remove the encroachment within 15 days. Additionally, the Sub Divisional officer issued a letter to the SHO, directing him to initiate action to remove the encroachment. Aggrieved by these directives, the petitioner has approached the High Court.
The Counsel for the Petitioner challenged directives and submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent is a civil dispute to be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.
The Court found that there is a title dispute existing between the petitioner and the respondent in respect of some land. The Court found that the SHO directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment after obtaining a survey report from the block development officer.
The Court stated that the SHO virtually assumed the role of a civil court to adjudicate the title dispute between the parties, despite lacking the authority to do so. It noted that there was no law and order situation also.
The Court said that the police lack the authority to adjudicate civil disputes regarding encroachments upon private properties and to direct the parties to remove the encroachment.
“It is not the job of the cops to meddle with or adjudicate civil disputes. The resolution of civil disputes is a matter absolutely within the realm of civil court. The police can intervene only if the law-and-order situation demands and not otherwise. “
As such, the writ petition was allowed and the directives were quashed.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Lal K Joseph, P.Muraleedharan (Thuravoor), T.A.Luxy, Koya Arafa Mirage, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim, Sanjay Sellen
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Sajith Kumar V., A.B.Jaleel, A.J.Shaheer
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 9723 OF 2024
Case Title: Ibrahim v Administrator
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 550