APHC010177052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 410 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-67 [3483] Aravasatyanarayana @ Sathibabu and others ...Appellants Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. Chintapalli Srinivas Advocates for Respondents: GP for Home, GP for Revenue, Mr. Sivaprasad Reddy Venati CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 22nd April, 2025. P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 03.03.2025, passed in W.P.No.52135 of 2025. 2. The learned single Judge by virtue of the said judgment and order, disposed of the petition with a direction to the Station House Officer, Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District to consider the representation of the petitioners for police protection and take necessary steps as required under law. 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_410_2025 3. Learned counsel for the appellants states that the said direction is being misinterpreted by the police authorities as if it is a direction to necessarily provide police protection. It is stated that in case police protection is provided, then the entire dispute with regard to the land in question which is a subject matter before the various Civil Courts would be rendered academic and in case any police protection is provided to the petitioners - private respondents herein, the appellants herein, who claim to be in possession of the property in question would be ousted. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, states that the appellants are certainly not in possession and that it is only the petitioners whose possession was being interfered with by the appellants and therefore, the appellants need to approach the learned single Judge to seek police protection. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. On a bare perusal of the order impugned, it can be seen that while the learned single Judge has directed the police authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 18.11.2024, there is no specific direction issued for providing police protection. We make it clear that there is no order issued to S.H.O., Peddapuram Police Station - respondent No.4 in the writ petition, to necessarily provide police protection, and that it will depend upon the decision of the police authorities, who may take a call in that regard on the 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_410_2025 basis of the representation filed, considering the nature of disputes pending between the parties, as also the civil litigation which is stated to be pending. 7. The present writ appeal is disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN