APHC010352352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 18695/2025 Between: 1. PUTLURU LAKSHMANNA, S/O P. NAGANNA, AGE 67YEARS, R/O. DO.NO 14-451 KAMALA NAGAR, ANANTAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAPTHADU POLICE STATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. T RAMESWAR, /O T. RAJASHEKHAR AGE40 YEARS R/O. D.NO. 2- 57, CHAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VAJRAKARUR MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. B RAMCHANDRA REDDY, S/O B. RAMI REDDY AGED 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 28-5-30, REVENUE COLONY, ANANTAPUR TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents No.2 and 3 in failing to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and his property from the illegal interference and threats posed by the unofficial respondents and their associates, despite the subsistence of an injunction order dated 02.05.2022 passed in O.S. No.52 of 2021 by the Learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, as illegal, arbitrary, mala fide and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondents No.2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation dated 26.05.2025 by following the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh 2014) 2 see 1 and provide necessary police protection in accordance with law and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 2 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 pleased to direct to the Respondents No. 2 and 3, to dispose the petitioner’s representation dt:26.05.2025 by following the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt, of Uttar Pradesh and and provide necessary police protection in accordance with law, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SRAVAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. CKR ASSOCIATES 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in failing to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner and his property from the illegal interference and threats posed by the unofficial respondents and their associates despite the subsistence of an injunction order dated 02.05.2022 passed in O.S.No.52 of 2021 by the Learned Judge Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu as illegal arbitrary mala fide and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation dated 26.05.2025 by following the guidelines laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh 2014 2 see 1 and provide necessary police protection in accordance with law” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, despite the order passed by the Court granting an injunction in favor of the petitioner, the police are not providing protection to safeguard the petitioner’s property. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 would submit that, as per the order passed by the Civil Court in I.A. No. 145 of 2022 in O.S. No. 52 of 2021, there is an injunction against respondents 4 and 5 restraining them from alienating the subject property or creating any third- party rights over the B-Schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. Therefore, possession currently lies with respondents 4 and 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 6. Considering the submissions made, since the property is admittedly in the possession of respondents 4 and 5, the request of the petitioner cannot be attended at this point of time. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties in a suit pending before the competent civil Court. However, it does not preclude the police to attend the representation submitted by the petitioner and dispose of the same, 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:29.07.2025 Asr 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.18695 of 2025 Dt.29.07.2025 Asr