APHC010701712022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 41437/2022 Between: 1. BOBBADI SATYANARAYANA, S/O LATE NARAYANAMURTHY, HINDU, AGED 47 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT DANDISURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, (OLD DISTRICT IS VISAKHAPATNAM). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE S P, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICEC I, CHODAVARAM CIRCLE, CHODAVARAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICERS H O, CHIDIKADA POLICE STATION, CHIDIKADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. BOBBADI VENKATA RAMAN, S/O NARAYANAMURTHY, AGED 67 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT. D.NO. 08-11-2022, DANDI SURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. BOBBADI YESURAJU, S/O VENKATA RAMAN, AGED 36 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT. D.NO. 08-11-2022, DANDI SURAVARAM 2 VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. BOBBADI JAYARAJ, S/O VENKATA RAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT. D.NO. 08-11-2022, DANDI SURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 8. BOBBADI NARAYANARAJ, S/O VENKATA RAMAN, AGED 28 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT. D.NO. 08-11-2022, DANDI SURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 9. BOBBADI VENKATA LAKSHMI, S/O YESURAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/AT. D.NO. 08-11-2022, DANDI SURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 10. DADI YESTER RANI, W/O SURESH, D/O BOBBADI VENKATA RAMAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, HINDU, CULTIVATION, R/AT. DANDI SURAVARAM VILLAGE, CHIDIKADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents are in not providing police protection/ for aid in implementing the decree of injunction granted in O.S. No. 138 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram in respect of the properties of an extent in item No.1 is a dry land situated in S. N.o .45/5 in an extent of Ac.O-20 cents locally known as Potti Revadi, Item No.2 is a wet land in S.No.118/9 in an extent of Ac.0-31 cents locally known as Pallammadi and item No.3 is a wet land in S.No.118/ 10 in an extent of Ac. 0-22 cents locally known as Pedda Aakumadi of Dandi Suravaram Village of Chidikada Mandal, Anakapalli District (old Visakhapatnam District) as illegal, arbitrary and non exercising the powers vested with the office and also violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide police protection/ aid in implementing the order injunction in O.S. 138 of 2009 and pass such order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA NO: 1 OF 2022 3 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 consider the complaints dated; 26-07- 2022 and direct the respondents to provide police aid/protection and see to it that the respondents 5 to 10 shall not interfere and with the possession and enjoyment of petitioners lands in an extent of in respect of the properties of an extent in item No.1 is a dry land situated in S. N.o .45/5 in an extent of Ac.0-20 cents locally known as Potti Revadi, Item No.2 is a wet land in S.No.118/9 in an extent of Ac.0-31 cents locally known as Pallammadi and item No.3 is a wet land in S.No.118/ 10 in an extent of Ac. 0-22 cents locally known as Pedda Aakumadi of Dandi Suravaram Village of Chidikada Mandal, Anakapalli District (old Visakhapatnam District) pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIMHACHALAM KARUKOLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 4 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: …. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents are in not providing police protection/ for aid in implementing the decree of injunction granted in O.S. No. 138 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram in respect of the properties of an extent in item No.1 is a dry land situated in S. N.o .45/5 in an extent of Ac.O-20 cents locally known as Potti Revadi, Item No.2 is a wet land in S.No.118/9 in an extent of Ac.0-31 cents locally known as Pallammadi and item No.3 is a wet land in S.No.118/ 10 in an extent of Ac. 0-22 cents locally known as Pedda Aakumadi of Dandi Suravaram Village of Chidikada Mandal, Anakapalli District (old Visakhapatnam District) as illegal, arbitrary and non exercising the powers vested with the office and also violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide police protection/ aid in implementing the order injunction in O.S. 138 of 2009 and pass such order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.……” 2. Heard Sri K.Simhachalam, learned counsel for the petitioner and V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2009 for permanent injunction, which was decreed in his favour vide orders dated 16.11.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants, who are unofficial respondents herein, preferred an Appeal Suit in A.S. No. 15 of 2015, which was dismissed on 13.08.2025. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. No. 279 of 2020, which was also dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 17.08.2022. Learned counsel 5 would further submit that they have given a representation to the police to provide protection to the property of the petitioner. As there was no response from the police, they have preferred the present writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that they have received the representation of the petitioner, but the representation does not mention the date or time specifically. A direction may be given to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the police. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 5. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has obtained a decree for permanent injunction in his favour, which was confirmed vide orders dated 13.08.2025 in A.S. No. 15 of 2015 and also in S.A. No. 279 of 2020 vide orders dated 17.08.2022. 6. In that view, this writ petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to protect the interest of the petitioner in the subject property as and when required. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 04.08.2025 MH 6 51 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.41437 of 2021 Dt.04.08.2025 MH