It would be definitely of immense significance to note that while ruling on a most significant legal point pertaining to the role of police in meddling with or adjudicating civil matters, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ibrahim vs The Administrator & Ors in WP(C) NO.9723 OF 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:KER:64095 that was finally heard and pronounced as recently as on August 22, 2024 minced just no words to observe that police do not have the authority to act as a civil court and adjudicate matters of civil dispute. It was held by the Kerala High Court that the police lack the authority to resolve civil disputes like property encroachment and such power is vested exclusively with civil courts. Very rightly so!

It certainly merits mentioning that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath maintained that police can involve themselves only when there is a threat to law and order and not for resolving mere civil disagreements. The Bench held that:
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. 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.” Absolutely right!

It must be mentioned here that the Court was hearing a petition that had been filed by Ibrahim who was from Lakshadweep and had challenged the communication that was issued by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kadamath police station over the allegations that he had brazenly encroached upon his neighbour’s land and build a boundary wall. The neighbour named Shareefabi had then lodged a police complaint alleging that Ibrahim had encroached upon his 70 square meters of land. The SHO then issued a communication to Ibrahim to remove the encroachment within 15 days.

It must be noted that the Kerala High Court held clearly that the SHO went beyond his legal authority by assuming the role of a civil court when he directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment. This was a clear rap on the knuckles by the Court on the role played by the SHO! Thus, the Kerala High Court very rightly allowed the petition and so also quashed the directive and letter issued by SHO and the Sub-Divisional Officer deeming them illegal. No denying!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The petitioner is assailing Ext. P5 communication issued by the Station House Officer, Kadmat Police Station, Kadmat Island, Lakshadweep (3rd respondent) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 of this notable judgment while elaborating on the facts of the case stating that:
The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 355 Sq. meters of land comprised in Sy No. 118/3. It is alleged that he constructed his dwelling house on the said property and also a boundary wall to demarcate the property after obtaining Ext. P3 permission from the 1st respondent. The 4th respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, alleging that the petitioner encroached on her property. The 3rd respondent, after enquiry, found that the petitioner encroached 70 Sq. metres of land belonging to the 4th respondent and constructed a compound wall. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 communication to the petitioner directing him to remove the encroachment within fifteen days. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 letter to the 3rd respondent to initiate necessary action pertaining to the alleged encroachment. It is challenging Exts.P5 and P6, this writ petition has been filed.”

Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 3 of this noteworthy judgment that:
I have heard Sri. Lal K. Joseph, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. V. Sajith Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration and Sri. A. B. Jaleel, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 4 of this extremely commendable judgment that:
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent is a civil dispute to be adjudicated by a competent civil court and hence all proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 are liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the petitioner trespassed into 70 Sq. metres of land belonging to the 4th respondent, and the action taken by the 3rd respondent was a legal step to prevent the petitioner from committing criminal trespass into the property of the 4th respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration defended the action of the 3rd respondent and submitted that he is competent to issue Ext.P5.”

As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 5 of this remarkable judgment that:
A reading of the pleadings in the writ petition, counter affidavit of the 4th respondent and Exts.P5 and P6 would show that there exists a title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent in respect of the property claimed by the petitioner. Ext.P5 discloses that on receipt of the complaint from the 4th respondent, alleging encroachment, the 3rd respondent directed the Block Development Officer, Kadmat, to survey the land and the survey team, after conducting the survey, reported that the petitioner had constructed the compound wall encroaching into the property of the 4th respondent. It was based on the said report, the 3rd respondent gave direction to the petitioner to remove the encroachment.”

Finally and far most significantly and so also most remarkably, most sagaciously and so also most forthrightly, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in the concluding para 6 holding clearly, cogently and convincingly that:
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. 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. The 3rd respondent virtually assumed the role of a civil court, adjudicated the title dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent, found that the petitioner had encroached on a portion of the property of the 4th respondent and directed him to remove the encroachment. The said act of the 3rd respondent is one without authority.

The 3rd respondent has no case that there was any law-and-order problem. In Ext.P5, the 3rd respondent has directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment within fifteen days. The police have no authority to decide the dispute regarding encroachment on private properties and to direct the parties to remove the encroachment. Therefore, Exts.P5 and P6 are not legally sustainable, and they are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.”

In a nutshell, it thus merits no reiteration of any kind that the bottom-line of this most enriching judgment by the Single Judge Bench of the Kerala High Court so precisely, perfectly and pragmatically comprising of Hon’ble Dr Justice Kauser Edappagath is that police is not entitled at all to meddle with or adjudicate civil disputes. It is therefore the bounden duty of the police not just in Kerala but all over the country to always most strictly abide by what the Kerala High Court has held in this leading case so elegantly, eloquently and effectively and not cross the red lines as laid down so clearly, commendably and convincingly on one pretext or the other! There can be just no denying or disputing it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.