Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 1471 (AP)

VANKANA NAVEENA v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/32611/2025 · 2026-04-19

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010629872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32611/2025 Between: 1. VANKANA NAVEENA, W/O. LATE PRAHLADA REDDY, AGED 41 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHINAORAMPADU VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLE MANDAI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. VANKANA KALAVATI,, W/O. NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. CHINAORAMPADU VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLE MANDAI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI. 3. THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUPATI RURAL POLICE STATION TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. KOMMINENI MAHESWAR NAIDU, S/O. DASARADHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-34, KAMMAKANDRIGA VILLAGE, GANGIREDDYPALLI POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. KOMMINENI VIJAYA BHASKAR NAIDU, S/O. DASARADHA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-34, KAMMAKANDRIGA VILLAGE, GANGIREDDYPALLI POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM 2 MANDAI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6. KOMMINENI DWARAKANADH, S/O. DASARADHA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-34, KAMMAKANDRIGA VILLAGE, GANGIREDDYPALLI POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 7. RAYAPATI HARI BABU, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, C/O. D.NO.1-34, KAMMAKANDRIGA VILLAGE, GANGIREDDYPALLI POST, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJENDRA C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, particularly 3rd respondent at the instance of respondents 4 to 7 in repeatedly insisting petitioners to appear before the 3rd respondents police station and insisting them to vacate from their vacant site properties bearing Plot Nos. 73A and 73B admeasuring an extent of 142.22 Sq.Yards and 133 Sq.Yards covered by Sy.No.13 situated at Ward No.8, Avilala Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District by settling the civil disputes and yield to the demands of respondents 4 to 7, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and voilative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with my life, personal liberty and said properties and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Ms. T.Sirisha, learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Chandragiri Rajendra, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the 3 respondent No.3 at the instance of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, is repeatedly insisting the petitioners to appear before the respondent No.3 and insisting them to vacate the vacant site belonging the petitioners. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner No.1 has submitted a PGRS complaint, pursuant to which, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Tirupathi has conducted a preliminary enquiry and noticed that the dispute in between the petitioners and unofficial respondents is civil in nature, He further submits that respondent No.3 has not insisted that the petitioners vacate the vacant site at the behest of respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 5. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondent No.3 not to insist upon or compel the petitioners to appear before him and not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 7, without following due process of law. 6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 20.04.2026 SSA 4 66 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 32611 of 2025 Date: 20.04.2026 SSA