APHC010338812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 17769/2025 Between: CHEEMALAKONDA SAI, S/O. RAMALINGAM, AGED. 60 YEARS, OCC. E.O (ENDOWMENTS) AGIRIPALLI, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY, AP. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIDADAVOLE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, UNDRAJAVARAM POLICE STATION EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP. 6. SMT NADIPALLI PARVATHI, W/O.NARAYANA RAO AGED. 63 YEARS. OCC HOUSEWIFE D.NO.25-13-20, YERRAMILLIVARI STREET TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. EEDARA SURYAVATHI, W/O.PRASADA RAO AGED 63 YEARS. OCC HOUSEWIFE D.NO.2-107/3, K.SAVARAM UNDRAJAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K B RAMANNA DORA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, 4th and 5th respondent in interfering with civil disputes and extending threats to the Petitioner in respect of property bearing Plot No. 11 and Plot No. 12 in R.S No.33/1 covered by L.P No. 97/1993 within specified boundaries and situated at Palangi Village, Palangi Panchayat Area, Udrajavaram Mandal, Tanuku Sub Division, East Godavari District and threatening to settle the disputes with 6th and respondents without issuing any notice or furnishing information and following due process of law as illegal, unwarranted, unsustainable, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against Law as well as principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents not to interference with the Petitioner without following due process of law.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the Police are not interfering in the civil disputes between the parties. 3. For ready reference, the written instructions are extracted hereunder: “In this connection, basing on the report given by the complainant a case in Cr.No.204/2024 U/s 303(2),329(3),324(4) R/w 3(5) BNS was registered in Undrajavaram PS on 11-12-2024 at 6-30 pm., and took up investigation in this case by the Sub-Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation it came to light that The complainant in this case obtained the above mentioned property through court auction and got it registered vide Document Nos. 1365/2005,1364/2005. The same property was purchased by the petitioner Cheemalakonda Sai, S/o Ramalingam in 2010. The petitioner sold the said property to Nadipalli Parvathi W/o Narayana and Eedara Suryavathi W/o Prasada Rao in 2013. The complainant in this case claim to be the owner of the said land and started constructing a house in the said land. The complainant reported that on 22.11.2024 one Gandham Pandu Rangarao, Nadipalli Narayana and Eedara Prasada Rao trespassed into 3 the under construction house premises and destroyed the walls and committed theft of iron gate of worth Rs.10,000/- The Respondents 6 and 7 Nadipalli Parvathi W/o Narayana and Eedara Suryavathi W/o Prasada Rao respectively too claim that the above property belongs to them. The scene was visited, rough sketch was prepared and the complainant and neighbouring witnesses were examined. Enquiries were initiated to know the actual facts behind the commission of the offence. The petitioner in this case is the person who sold the disputed property to the respondents 6 & 7 Nadipalli Parvathi W/o Narayana and Eedara Suryavathi W/o Prasada Rao respectively. The respondents 6 & 7 might have pressured the petitioner regarding the issue or the petitioner being an officer in the state government might have come to know about the facts of the case. The petitioner with a safety outlook that he might be added to the list of accused in this case have filed this petition in the honorable court. The petitioner was never called to the police station for enquiry or any. Any how he is the prime witness in this case as of now and the further investigation is to be done. In the light of the above it is submitted that the petitioner has filed this writ petition only to escape from the police investigation as his enquiry is necessary in the investigation of Cr.No.204/2024 U/s 303(2), 329(3),324(4) R/w 3(5) BNS was registered in Undrajavaram PS.” 4. Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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:17.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.17769 of 2025 Dt.17.07.2025 Dinesh