APHC010421002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22490/2025 Between: 1. A JAILABUDDIN, , S/O PUTHAGARAM AMEER SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O V. MITTAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUPPAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. SAMSHEED BEE, W/O LATE AMEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MITTAPALLI VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-517425. 5. JOHAR, S/O KASIM SAHED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O GANESH PURAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,- 5174256. 6. ANWAR, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O GANESH PURAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT PIN- 5174256. 7. RAFI, , S/O ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, GANESH PURAM, 2 KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT PIN-5174256. 8. AMANULLA, S/O GAFOOR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O GANESH PURAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT PIN- 5174256. 9. SHABRIN, W/O AMANULLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O GANESH PURAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT PIN- 5174256. 10. MUBARAK, S/O ANWAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KUPPAM PALACE ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-5174256. 11. HANEEF, S/O LATE CHOTA SAHEB, AGED ABOGT 55 YEARS, R/O MODEL COLONY, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT- 5174256. 12. AMMAJI, W/O HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MODEL COLONY AUTO STAND ROAD, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT -5174256. 13. KADIR, S/O LATE AMEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O V. MITTAPALLI VILLAGE, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT- 5174256. 14. BABU, S/O HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MODEL COLONY, KUPPAM TOWN, AUTO STAND ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-5174256. 15. JAKEER, S/O HANEEF, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O MODEL COLONY KUPPAM TOWN, AUTO STAND ROAD, CHITTOOR DISTRICT -5174256. 16. JAMEEL, S/O LATE CHOTA @ GHAFOOR SAB, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, GANESH PURAM, KUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT-5174256. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR HOME 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22490 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent in providing the police Protection to the petitioner and his family members, from the respondents No. 4 to 16,at his agricultural land an extent of AC 1.05 Cents of Mittapalle Revenue Village of Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District is arbitrary illegal and against to the provisions Article 21 of the Constitution of India and against to the sprit of article 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide police protection on the petitioner representation dated 14.7.2025 and pass.…” 2. Heard Sri Velagani Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that an ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of Petitioner vide Orders dated 20.08.2024 in I.A.No.256 of 2024 in O.S.No.122 of 2024 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. It is further submitted that inspite of the said orders, the unofficial respondents have been disturbing his possession and enjoyment over the subject property. The petitioner has approached the respondent police on 14.07.2025 and submitted 5 a complaint in PGRS, but no action has been taken so far. As there is no alternative remedy, they have filed the present writ petition. 3. Admittedly, a civil suit has been filed by the Petitioners herein in O.S.No.122 of 2024 which is pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam. During the subsistence of the said suit, a petition in I.A.No.256 of 2024 was filed seeking temporary injunction, wherein the Petitioner has obtained an order of ad-interim injunction dated 20.08.2024, even before the Respondents entered their appearance in the said suit. In support of his contention learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sathi Vinod Kumar Reddy vs. State of A.P., and Others1 wherein at Para Nos.16 and 17 it was held as under: “16. The Honourable Apex Court in the case of P.R.Murlidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others held at Para No.19 that :- “A writ for “police protection” so-called, has only a limited scope, as, when the court is approached for protection of rights declared by a decree or by an order passed by a civil court. It cannot be extended to cases where rights have not been determined either finally by the civil court or, at least at an interlocutory stage in an unambiguous manner, and then too in furtherance of the decree or order. 17. Therefore, the legal position is now clear that when there was a decree passed or an order at interlocutory stage, like the present one on merits, after hearing both the parties, writ Court can grant police aid by entertaining the writ petition filed to that effect for effective implementation of the said temporary injunction order.” 1 MNU/AP/0803/2021 6 5. The above judgment is not helpful to the case of the Petitioner since the interim order passed therein, was on merits. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petition may be disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to seek the very same relief before the trial Court. Learned counsel would further submit that their representation is pending before the Police. 5. In that view, the writ petition is disposed of without causing any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to recourse his remedy before the trial Court in case of violation of the order passed by the Court in O.S.No.122 of 2024. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 03.09.2025. UPS 7 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.22490 of 2025 Dated.03.09.2025 UPS 156