The Allahabad High Court clarified that police authorities and executive officers have no jurisdiction to adjudicate or interfere in civil disputes relating to title, possession, or boundaries of immovable property between private parties, except to the limited extent necessary for maintaining public peace and preventing breach of law and order under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The court made this observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by an 85-year-old woman who alleged police were repeatedly harassing her and siding with private respondents in a family property dispute. The petitioner sought directions restraining authorities from disturbing her possession under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench noted a civil suit concerning the same property was already pending before a competent civil court and declined to entertain the petition on those grounds.

The petitioner's counsel argued police had no business siding with one party and were creating hindrances to legitimate construction.

The court reiterated that disputes relating to title, possession, partition or property boundaries between private individuals are matters for civil courts. Police and revenue or executive authorities cannot act as adjudicatory bodies or assist one party in dispossessing the other without a specific court order.

Referring to previous judgments, government orders and the Uttar Pradesh DGP's 2023 circular, the court reaffirmed that only civil courts can adjudicate private property disputes.

The bench directed police to ensure no party takes law into its own hands and to maintain peace without favouring any side. It warned that police officers and executive authorities acting beyond their jurisdiction could face departmental or contempt proceedings. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek relief before the appropriate civil court.

The Allahabad High Court has clarified that police cannot interfere in purely civil property disputes merely because one party files a complaint. Police role is limited to maintaining law and order, preventing breach of peace, investigating cognisable offences, and enforcing court orders. Questions relating to ownership, title, possession, partition, or property boundaries must be decided by competent civil courts.

The case arose from a family property dispute where petitioners alleged police were interfering with their peaceful possession and harassing them. The High Court observed the dispute was purely civil in nature and a civil suit was already pending. It held that ownership or possession issues cannot be decided in writ proceedings.

Petitioners alleged local police were siding with private respondents and obstructing construction on disputed property. The court reiterated that police have no authority to interfere in disputes over title, possession, or property boundaries between private parties. Police cannot help one party take or restore possession without a competent court order.

The court warned that police officers and executive authorities acting beyond jurisdiction could face departmental or contempt proceedings. Only civil courts can adjudicate private property disputes. The writ petition was disposed with liberty to seek relief before appropriate civil court.

Persons facing unlawful police interference can approach civil court, invoke High Court writ jurisdiction, or report to senior police authorities. Property buyers and sellers should conduct thorough title searches, verify ownership documents, check encumbrances, revenue and municipal records, and verify pending litigation before transactions.