APHC010173192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9089/2025 Between: Kovvuri Venkatakrishna Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUBBARA DUSHYANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3 in considering the representation dated 24.03.2025 seeking protection of the property. It is submitted that the respondents 4 to 6 have initially filed a suit for injunction vide O.S.No.126 of 2012, which was dismissed on merits on 20.02.2018. Aggrieved by the dismissal, they have filed Appeal Suit No.13 of 2018, which 2 was also dismissed on 22.09.2023. The civil suits have attained finality and the respondents 4 to 6 have not taken the same in further appeal before this Court. However, the respondents are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. In this regard, a complaint was registered against the respondents 4 to 6 vide Crime No.40 of 2025 under Sections 324(4) of BNSS. Instead of registration of crime, the respondents are interfering with the possession. In this regard, the petitioner made a representation dated 24.03.2025 to the 3rd respondent. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is no endorsement on the said representation and that no such representation is received by the 3rd respondent. 4. Considering the same, the petitioner is directed to make fresh representation to the 3rd respondent and on such receipt of representation, the 3rd respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law duly keeping in view the orders passed by the competent civil Courts dismissing the claim of the respondents 4 to 6 over the property and also the 3rd respondent shall keep in view the standing crop on the land and take necessary action in accordance with law. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BMS