Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25777 (AP)

Ch. Sridevamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/24253/2020 · 2025-09-01

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010364282020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24253/2020 Between: 1. CH. SRIDEVAMMA, D/O. LATE VENKATA NAIDU HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RIO. PLOT NO.503, BALAJI NAGAR, THOTAPALEM, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT, AT VIZIANAGRAM 4. THE THASILDAR, PARVATHIPURAMVIZAINAGRAM DISTRICT. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARVATHIPURAM RURAL POLICE STATION VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT. 7. ROMPALLI TIRUPATI RAO, S/O. SRI RAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCC- PRIVATE SCHOOL CORRESPONDENT, R/O. M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT. 8. GEMBALI SURESH, S/O. BHASKAR RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC-PVT.EMPLOYEE R/O. M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 9. GEMBALIBADARI NARAYANA, S/O. MANAMADA RAO, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 10. GEMBALIKAILASAM, S/O. MANAMADA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM 1VIANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 11. THONDRANK PEDDA PRASAD, S/O. T.NARSIMHARAO,ILINDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC- WASHERMAN, R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 12. YERRAPU GOURU, S/O. Y. APPI SETTI HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS, OCC- WASHERMAN RIO. CHAKALLI STREET, M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 2 13. YERRAPU GOWRI SANKARA RAO, S/O. GANGAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 50YEARS OCC- WASHERMAN, R/O. CHAKALLI STREET, APPANNADORAVALASAVILLAGE,M.R. NAGAR POST, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 14. PATNANA DURGA PRASAD, S/O. RAMAVTHARAM. HINDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 15. BUGUTHA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. SEETA RAMA SWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 16. GEMBALI GOWRI SANKARA RAO, S/O. SATYNARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT 17. GEMBALI KESAVA RAO, , S/O. SRINIVASA RAO HINDU, AGED ABOUT 40YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION R/O.M.R.NAGARAM VILLAGE, PARVATHIPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. SURESH KUMAR POTTURI 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 the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in considering representations of the petitioner dated 12.10.2020 and 30.11.2020 for providing protection to the petitioner and protection to the Dharma Koneru and Ramulavari temple properties situated in Sy Nos 8/1 8/2 8/3 8/8 8/9 9/7 9/9 of Peda Bond apalli Village Mandal Vizianagaram District as illegal arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and to provide protection to the petitioner and protection to the Dharma Koneru and Ramulavari temple properties in the interest of justice.” 2. Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the disputes between the parties are purely civil in nature. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to work out her 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:02.09.2025 ASR 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.24253 of 2020 Dt.02.09.2025 Asr