APHC010273932018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 12295/2018 Between: 1. M. SRINIVAS, S/O SURYANARAYANA.. HINDU., AGED ABOUT 51 AYEARS., R/O. 1279, DEERFIELD PARKWAY.,103., BUFFALOGROVE., ILLINOISE, 60089 U.S.A., 2. MERNEEDI SATYA GANGA PRASAD., S/O. SURYANARAYANA., HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.. R/O. 2320(W).. FOX WILL DRIVE.. 103.. BUFFALOGROVE.. ILLINOISE, 60089, U.S.A.. (BOTH THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR FATHER AND G.P.A.. HIDER., SRI MERNEEDI SURYANRAYANA.. S/O. GANGARAJU., HINDU., AGED 73 YEARS.. R/O. PLOT NO. B-48.. SHEELANAGAR., BHPV POST OFFICE., VISAKHAPATNAM) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT.BUILDINGS.. VELAGAPUDI., AMARAVATHI., GUNTUR DISTRICT.. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY., VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, P.M. PALEM POLICE STATION.. VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE TAHSILDAR, VISAKHAPTNAM (RURAL) MANDAL., VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. SMT DUVVURI VASANTHI, W/O. RAMAHANDRA REDDY., AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS., FLAT NO. 504., SRIMITRA RESIDENCY., SATAVAHANANAGAR., KURMANNAPALEM.. VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 046 6. SRI BAGADI SATISH NAIDU, S/O. B. VENKATA NAIDU.. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.. R/O. D.NO. 1-5-9/43.. FLAT NO. 504.. SRIMITRA RESIDENCY., SATAVAHANANAGAR.. KURMANNAPALEM., VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 046. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V V N NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to the petitioners herein situated at Survey No. 74/7 of Boravanipalem village, Paradesipalem Panchayat, Visakhpatnam district at the instance of the respondents 5 and 6 without any order from the civil court or competent authority as arbitrary, illegal. improper and incorrect and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of the land belonging to the petitioners herein situated at Survey No. 74/7 of Boravanipalem village, Paradesipalem Panchayat, Visakhapatnam district at the instance of the respondents 5 and 6 without any order from the civil court or competent authority.” 2. None represented for the Petitioners. 3. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that Respondent No.3 had not interfered into the land issues of the Petitioners and the writ petition may be disposed of. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “It is submitted that on 1.12.20, the respondent No.3 received a court referred complaint from the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam wherein the respondent No.5 is the complainant, she stated that some persons are trespassing into her land in Sy. No. 73/1D an extent of I acre 65 cents. On that a case was registered in Crime No. 590/2017 for the offences U/s.448, 427, 506(ii) r/w 149 IPC & Sc4 & 5 of A.P.Land Grabbing Act & Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C of P.M.Palem P.S., Visakhapatnam City. In that 3 case one Merneedi Suryanayarana who is father of the petitioner was made an accused in this case. It is respectfully submitted that prior to the registration of the case, both the petitioners and respondent parties approached the respondent N.3 regarding ownership of the land, on that the respondent No.3 had addressed a letter to respondent No.4 on 30.10.2017 to conduct survey in Sy.No.73/1D an extent of 1 acre 65 cents. On that the respondent No.4 conducted survey and submitted a report to the respondent No.3 on 16.12.2017 stating that the land belongs to respondent No.5 accused in the case and the responder No.1 stated to him that the disputed land belongs to the respondent Nos as per survey report. That as part of the investigation the father of the petitioner was called to the police station by respondent No.3, but the respondent No.3 had not interfered into the land issues of the petitioners. At present the case is still under investigation.” 4. Recording the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:15.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.12295 of 2018 Dt.15.07.2025 Dinesh