APHC010510052024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION Between: 1. SRINIVASULU, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, A.P. 2. Harathi, W/o. (late) Subrahmanyam, Aged 38 years, Occ House Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, A.P. 3. Majunath, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 40 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, A.P. 4. N. Naresh, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, A.P. 5. B. Muniratnam, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 32 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, A.P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 26799 OF 2024 1. SRINIVASULU, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, 2. Harathi, W/o. (late) Subrahmanyam, Aged 38 years, Occ House Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 3. Majunath, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 40 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 4. N. Naresh, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 5. B. Muniratnam, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 32 years, Occ Cultivation, dabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, ...Petitioners AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 1. SRINIVASULU, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, 2. Harathi, W/o. (late) Subrahmanyam, Aged 38 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 3. Majunath, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 40 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 4. N. Naresh, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 48 years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Pedabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu 5. B. Muniratnam, S/o. Pedanarayanappa, Aged 32 years, Occ Cultivation, dabommanapalli Village, Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, ...Petitioners 2 1. THE STATE OF AP, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District Division, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Station House Officer, Rallabuduguru Police Station, Shanthipuram Mandal, Chittoor District 4. Krishnappa, S/o. (late) Ramappa, Aged 62 years, . Pedabommanapalli Village Santhipuram Post, Santhipuram Mandal, Chitturu District, Andhra Pradesh. ...Respondents 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 pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not providing police protection for due implementation of injunction orders dt.04-08-2022 issued in I.A.452/2022 in O.S.153/2022 issued by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 2 & 4 to provide police protection for due implementation of injunction orders dt.04- 08-2022 issued in I in I.A.452/2022 in O.S. 153/2022 issued by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: VEMA RAMANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: 3 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No: 26799 OF 2024 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not providing police protection for due implementation of injunction orders dt.04-08-2022 issued in I.A.452/2022 in O.S.153/2022 issued by Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam and pass…” 2 Heard Sri Vema Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has obtained an order of ad-interim injunction dated 04.08.2022 in I.A. No.452 of 2022 in O.S. No.153 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is further submitted that the Presiding Officer of the trial Court is presently on training, it is making difficult for the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the civil Court. However, despite the said injunction order, the unofficial respondents are allegedly attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks police protection for due enforcement of the injunction order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, and unless the police receive a specific judicial direction to extend protection, they are unable to interfere in the civil dispute relating to possession of the property. 5 5. Having regard to the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that since the matter is pending before the competent civil Court, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to work out his remedies in the said forum. However, it is made clear that the pendency of the civil suit or the absence of the Presiding Officer shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the police authorities in the event of any imminent threat of dispossession, and in such event, the concerned police shall consider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the concerned civil Court where the suit is pending. Further, in case of any imminent threat to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, he shall be at liberty to approach the police, and get protection in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stands closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 03.09.2025 KKV 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.26799 of 2024 Dated.03.09.2025 KKV 175