1 APHC010406482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21740/2025 Between: 1. D. PRABHAVATHI, W/O. D.KUPPA SWAMY NAIDU, R/O. D.NO.1-1, C MALLAVARAM, MALLAVARAM, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT, OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUPATHI RURAL POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 6. BONDU SANTHA KUMARI, W/O. B.VISWANADHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-306, PERUMALAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing Police protection to safeguard the possession of the petitioner over the land upto an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents in Sy.No.143/1 A of Pydipalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District (previously Chittoor District) bounded by Pydipalli Village Road on the East, Remaining extent of Land owned by-Gampala Balarami Reddy on the west and North, land belonging to Perug,u Venkatamuni Reddy on the South is as per se as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the Official respondents to grant Police protection to safeguard our possession over the said lands and a further direction to the 6th Respondent not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the said land and to pass IA NO: 1 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 pleased to direct the respondents to grant Police protection to safeguard our possession over the land upto an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents in Sy.No.143/1A of Pydipalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District {previously Chittoor District) bounded by Pydipalli Village Road on the East, Remaining extent of Land owned by Gampala Balarami Reddy on the west and North, land belonging to Perugu Venkatamuni Reddy on the South, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VMR LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 21682 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing Police protection to safeguard the possession of the petitioner over the land up to an extent of Ac. 0.73 cents in Sy.No.143/1 A of Pydipalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District (previously Chittoor District) bounded by Pydipalli Village Road on the East, Remaining extent of Land owned by-Gampala Balarami Reddy on the west and North, land belonging to Perug,u Venkatamuni Reddy on the South is as per se as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the Official respondents to grant Police protection to safeguard our possession over the said lands and a further direction to the 6th Respondent not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of the said land and to pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that they made an oral representation to the police for protection of the subject property. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that they have filed a civil suit in O.S.No.228 of 1991 against their vendor for the relief of specific performance. The said suit was decreed on 11.04.1997. Thereafter, they have filed Execution petition and obtained sale deed through the Court. Learned counsel would further submit that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since then. But the unofficial respondents are threatening to dispossess them from the schedule property. 4 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that police have not received any written representation from the petitioner and the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation as and when necessary to protect her property according to law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 19.08.2025. UPS 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.21740 of 2025 Dated.19.08.2025 UPS 125