APHC010294982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADE AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Fi:^ TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 708 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dt. 04/04/2025 in WP No. 8832 of 2025 on the file of the High Court. Between: Gurvindagunta Jagapathirao, S/o. Peda Kotaiah, Christian, Aged about 61 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. 1. 2. Nagadesi Yesu Premaiah, S/o. Prakasa Rao, Aged about 60 years. Agricultural coolie, Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. Daram Sreeramulu, S/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Aged about 60 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal 3. Nagadesi Suguna Rao, S/o. James, Aged about 60 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. 4. Bapatia Jaya Raju,S/o. Esuratnam alias Basavaiah, Aged about 63 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. 5. Puli Samyul, S/o. Koteswapa Rao, Aged about 57 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. 6. Pulavarthi Ezraiah, S/o. Purushottam, Aged about 67 years. Agricultural coolie. Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. 7. € 8. Nagadesi Yesupadam, S/o. Francis, Aged about 63 years, Agricultural coolie Kesident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner -AND- 1. Dasari Venkata Krishna Rao.S/o Venkata Ramaiah Aged about 66 years, 41-23-1/6A Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada - 13. Bramarambhapuram ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings,Velagapudi, Guntur District. A.P., 3. The District Collector, Machilipatna Krishna District. m, 4. The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 5. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada MandalKrishna District. 6. The Station House Officer, Pedaparupudi Police Station, Peadaparupudi Mandal Krishna District Andhra Pradesh. 7. Kota Simon,S/o. Devanandam, Aged about 60 years,Railway Gangman. Resident of Nagapuram,Pedaparupudi Mandal. 8. Nagadesi Kurumaiah. S/o. John Subrahmanyam Aged about 60 years, Agricultural coolie, Resident of Nagapuram, Pedaparupudi Mandal. (Respondent No. 7 &8 is not necessary party) ...Respondents \ V lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of Orders dated 04/04/2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. No.8832 of 2025. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. Y MAHA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D S SIVADARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 & 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8 : — The Court made the following: JUDGMENT APHC010294982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-7 [3483] r AT AMARAVATI fc-? WRIT APPEAL NO: 708 of 2025 Gurvindagunta Jagapathirao and others ...Appellants Vs. Dasari Venkata Krishna Rao and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants Advocate for Respondents Ms. Y. Maha Lakshmi Sri D. S. Sivadarshan, learned Government Pleader for Home, learned Government Pleader for Revenue. CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 24th June 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.8832 of 2025 whereby, the learned single Judge disposed of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to submit his representation to the Station House Officer, Pedaparupudi Police Station, Pedaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District, who would ensure that the orders passed by the competent Court in Execution Petition No.48 of 1993 in ’ O.S.No.43 of 1982 are complied with in letter and spirit. 2. It appears from the record that the petitioner filed a suit, obtained a decree and was handed over possession of land, which was the schedule 2 property in the civil suit, in the execution proceedings. Claim of the petitioner was that despite the fact that the land in question, which was the subject matter of suit, had been handed over to the petitioner in execution proceedings, the respondents/appellants herein were interfering with his possession and therefore, sought police protection. 3. In the present writ appeal, learned counsel for the appellants sought to urge that by virtue of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the petitioner/respondent No.1 was trying to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the land which was never the subject matter of the civil suit or the execution proceedings. It was, therefore, suggested that the order passed by the writ Court be clarified to that extent. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the parties that the civil suit 4. filed by the petitioner has since attained finality, a decree passed and the possession of land handed over to the petitioner and therefore, any subsequent interference by the judgment debtors over the property which was the subject matter of the dispute before the civil Court cannot be permitted and therefore, in those circumstances, police protection, if necessary, could have been ordered inasmuch as failure to order such police protection perhaps would render the entire exercise undertaken by the Courts during the course of trial or subsequent thereto during the course of execution proceedings totally redundant. 3 The apprehension expressed by the appellants is that the petitioner, with the help of the police, would interfere with the possession over the land which was never the subject matter of the civil suit or execution proceedings and the same can be taken care of by ensuring that the police shall not in any go beyond ensuring the protection of the property which was otherwise the subject matter of civil suit bearing No.O.S.No.43 of 1982. 5. manner Notwithstanding the order passed by the trial Court, in case there is any interference over the property, which was not the subject matter of civil suit, nothing would prevent the appellants herein to avail their remedies in law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. 7. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. A.P. 2. The District Collector, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District. Pedaparupudi Police Station, 5. The Station House Officer Peadaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh. 6. One CC to Smt. Y Maha Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. One CC to Sri D S Sivadarshan Advocate [OPUC] 10. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 JUDGMENT WA 708/2025 of AND77g iS 01 JUL 2025 rrwtSectioQ^^y O' Co ta DISPOSING OF THE W.A., WITHOUT COSTS