IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13086 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Seerapu Shyamala, W/o. Pitta Kata Raju, Hindu, Aged about 74 years, R/o. Aditya Royal Apartment, Block-504 Lawson Bay colony, Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam City, Visakhapatnam. The Station House Officer, Bhimunipatnem Police Station. Visakhapatnam District. Sri Kallepalli Venkata Satya Naga Krishnam Raju, S/o Venkata Sita Rama Raju, Hindu, Aged 55 years, R/o. D.No.4-73/2, Alampuram village, Pentapdu Mandal,; West Godavari District. Sri Penmetsa Gopala Raju, S/o. Gopala Raju, Aged. Major, Resident of Chivatam Village, Undrajavaram Mandal, West Godavari District. Sri Mudunuri Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, S/o. Satyanarayana Raju, Hindu, Aged. Major, R/o. Balaji Hills, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature Of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, in repeatedly summoning and harassing the Petitioner, a 74-year-old cancer patient at the instigation of Respondent Nos 4 to 6, in connection with a civil property dispute which is sub judice before a competent civil court with an injunction order in favor of the Petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to Section 160<^r.P.C., and consequently direct the Respondent Nos 2 and 3 not to interfere in the civil dispute or summon or harass the Petitioner in any manner. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos 2 and 3, not to summon, call, or harass the Petitioner in any manner and not to interfere with the Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 : NONE APPEARED^ The Court made the following: ORDER f APHC010253542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY ,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13086/2025 Between: Smt Seerapu Shyamala, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13086/2025 ORDER: The grievance of the Petitioner in this Writ Petition is that she was called for Pre Litigation Counsel Forum (PLCF), Visakhapatnam in regard to resolution of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.4 to 6. it is averred that the Petitioner is 74 years old lady and suffering from 2. Written instructions by the Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnem Police Station have been submitted that PLCF calls were made to the parties in this case for counseling, but the parties need not appear if they did not choose to do so and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no role to play in that regard. The Inspector of Police, Bhimunipatnem Police Station submitted a letter to the Government Pleader stating that the counseling procedure was closed as the Petitioner was not willing to attend for amicable settlement of their land dispute. Therefore, the matter was closed by PLCF on 14.05.2025. 3. It is needless to mention that when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes. This kind of establishing or creating cancer. : i { I f % PLCF calls for settlement of land dispute would lead to multifarious litigation and create a kind of perplex in the minds of the litigants and mushroom further litigations. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to entertain further civil issues like this under of the petitioner. 4. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. any name for settlement of the land dispute As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand RAO assistant registrar closed. //true copy// To, SECTION OFFICER 3' I’sZ'r'f”" a*. Visakhapatnam^pfste Police Station. 4. One CC to Sri Sreemannar 5. Two CCS to GP for Home 6- Three C.D. Copies. ayana Vattikuti, Advocate [OPUC] High Court ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT] Cnr 9 HIGH COURT DATED:16/05/2025 VACATION COURT ORDER * 1!MAY2(R5 | Curreni seciion W WP.No.13086 of 2025 EP CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS