1 APHC010000822024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 400/2024 Between: 1. JONNALAGADDA LAKSHMI NARAYANA, S/O NARASARAO, AGED 60 YEARS,R/O D.NO.HG-1/A-189,SAGAR NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM,ANDHRA PRADESH-530045 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOPALAPURAM POLICE STATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. JONNALAGADDA NAGA MOHAN, S/O NARASARAO RAO, AGED 59 YEARS, R/ 0 VEDULLAKUNTA, HAMLET OF VEDALAKUNTA, GOPALAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR HOME 2. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd in not providing Police protection preventing the interference of the respondents 4 herein with peaceful possession of property situated at survey No. 1/2 of extent Ac.4.00 cents (Old Survey No 188) situated at Komatigunta village of Gopalapuram Mandal, belonging to the Petitioner despite there is an order of Permanent injunction vide its orders in OS NO 277/2005 Dated 14/06/2011 on the file of 1st Addl Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, and also representation of the petitioner dated 17/12/2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of Natural justice and also the violation of Art.21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to provide Police protection duly considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17/12/2023 and pass...” 2. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader, and Sri Devi Sri Prasad Mangalapuri. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 277 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur, seeking permanent injunction and obtained a decree in favour vide decree and judgment dated 14.06.2011. Learned counsel would further submit that no appeal has been preferred against the said judgment, which has become final. Learned counsel would further submit that, while so, the unofficial respondent is interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property, and there is no response 3 from the police on the representation of the petitioner. Learned counsel would finally seek a direction to the police to consider their representation and take appropriate steps according to law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 would submit that the petitioner has obtained a permanent injunction in O.S. No. 277 of 2005 as against respondent No. 4. He filed a counter in this matter on the property that is not in existence. Learned counsel brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No. 4 filed a counter in this matter. There is no whisper about any appeal preferred against the judgment in O.S. No. 277 of 2005; that is why it has become final in the light of the decree and judgment passed in favour of the petitioner. Let there be a direction to the police to consider the representation. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made, since the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are the parties before the civil Court in O.S. No. 277 of 2005, as rightly put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, they have filed the said suit for permanent injunction relating to the subject property therein and obtained a judgment and decree in favour, as against respondent No. 4 herein, who was the defendant in the said suit. 7. In that view, since the said judgment and decree is in favour of the petitioner and is not set aside, the contention of respondent No. 4 that the property is not in existence cannot be countenanced. In that view, this writ 4 petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to look into the representation of the petitioner and take an appropriate decision over the matter according to governing rules and law, till the said judgment and decree for permanent injunction is in favour of the petitioner as against respondent No. 4. 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:01.09.2025 MH 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 237 W.P.No.400 of 2024 Dt.01.09.2025 MH 6