APHC010459022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24371/2025 Between: 1. KARREDDULA MASTHANAIAH, S/O. PEDA VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION R/O. S.T COLONY, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 2. KARREDDULA PADMAMMA, W/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC - HOUSE WIFE, R/O. S.T COLONY, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, ANDHRA PRADESH 522502 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT AT NELLORE 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAPUR CIRCLE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SYDAPURAM POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 6. N KRANTHI KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC - SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE SYDAPURAM POLICE STATION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 7. KOPPU PRASAD, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 8. MALLARAPU RAMACHANDRAIAH, S/O. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 9. PANDITI CHINA MASTHANAIAH BUDDAIAH, S/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC - COOLIE, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 10. PANDITI BUJJAMMA, W/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC - HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 11. PANDITI PEDA MASTHANAIAH, S/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 12. PANDITI PENCHALAIAH, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 13. PANDITI CHINNA MASTHANAIAH, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 14. PANDITI SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC - CULTIVATION, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 15. PANDITI PEDA VENKATA RAMANAMMA, W/O. SUBRAHMANYAM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC - HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 16. PANDITI DEVASENAMMA, W/O. MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC - HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 17. PANDITI RAMAMMA, , W/O. CHINA MASTHANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC - HOUSEWIFE, R/O. ARUNDHATIWADA, SYDAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL SPSR NELLORE 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 to issue the Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 3 to 5 to provide the police aid to enforce the interim injunction granted in favour of the 1st Petitioner and mother of the 2nd Petitioner in l.A.No.299 / 2019 in O.S.No.226 / 2019 dated 03.09.2019 by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District with regard to the subject property an extent of Ac.0.95 cents in survey No. 780 / 6P and an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in survey No. 780 / 5P totally an extent of Ac.1.95 cents of the 1st Petitioner as well as an extent of Ac. 0.80 cents in survey No. 780 / 8P and an extent of Ac. 1.00 cents in survey No. 780 / 7P totally an extent of Ac. 1.80 cents of 2nd Petitioner, situated at Molakalapundia Village, Sydapuram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 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 3rd Respondent dispose of the representation of the 1st Petitioner dated 25.08.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K RAMA KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No.: 24371 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…pleased to issue the Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondents 3 to 5 to provide the police aid to enforce the interim injunction granted in favour of the 1st Petitioner and mother of the 2nd Petitioner in l.A.No.299/2019 in O.S.No.226/2019 dated 03.09.2019 by the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Gudur SPSR Nellore District with regard to the subject property an extent of Ac 0 95 cents in survey No 780/6P and an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in survey No.780/5P totally an extent of Ac 1.95 cents of the 1st Petitioner as well as an extent of Ac 0 80 cents in survey No 780 / 8P and an extent of Ac 1 00 cents in survey No.780/7P totally an extent of Ac.1.80 cents of 2nd Petitioner situated at Molakalapundia Village, Sydapuram Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners herein filed civil suit in O.S.No.226 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, SPSR Nellore District, seeking permanent injunction against the defendants therein, wherein the Court has granted ad- interim injunction in favour of the petitioners in I.A.No.299 of 2019 in O.S.No.226 of 2019 dated 03.09.2019 and the same has been extended from time to time. He would further submit that even after obtaining interim injunction in favour of the petitioners herein, unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 17 are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyments of the petitioners over the subject property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the police for police aid but there is no response from the respondent police. As there is no alternative remedy, they have filed the present writ petition. 4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.Bharathi and others Vs. State of Telangana1. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that since it is a civil matter unless there is any direction from the Court, they cannot provide police aid to the petitioners. 6. As can be seen from the record, the ad-interim injunction passed by the Court is not passed on merits after hearing both sides. The Judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to the rescue of the relief sought by learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. It is beneficial to refer the Judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in P.R.Mualidharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others2 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court declared the law on this subject in the following manner: "A writ petition under the guise of seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to give protection to a writ petitioner, cannot be made a forum for adjudicating on civil rights. It is one thing to approach the High Court, for issuance of such a writ on a plea that a particular party has not obeyed a decree or an order of injunction passed in favour of the writ petitioner, was deliberately flouting that 1 2017 (1) ALD 503 2 2006 (4) SCC 501 decree or order and in spite of the petitioner applying for it, or that the police authorities are not giving him the needed protection in terms of the decree or order passed by a Court with jurisdiction. But, it is quite another thing to seek a writ of mandamus directing protection in respect of property, status or right which remains to be adjudicated upon and when such an adjudication can only be got done in a properly instituted civil suit. It would be an abuse of process for a writ petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to protect his claimed possession of a property without first establishing his possession in an appropriate civil Court." (Emphasis supplied) 8. Considering the submissions and in the light of the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since the interim injunction passed by the Court is not passed on merits after hearing both parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies before the competent court where their suit is pending. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 31.10.2025 M K K HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.24371 of 2025 Dated: 31.10.2025 M K K 130