Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52806 (AP)

Pogiri Rama krishna Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/5259/2022 · 2025-11-04

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010078472022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 5259/2022 Between: 1. POGIRI RAMA KRISHNA NAIDU, S/O LATE APPALANAIDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O S.RANGARAYAPURAM VILLAGE, SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM SRIKAKULAM. DISTRICT 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SANTHAKAVITI POLICE STATION SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE ASSISTANT SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANTHAKAVITI POLICE STATION SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 5. ARASADA RAJAMOHAN, AGE 32 YEARS OCC. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.S.PURAM VILLAGE/POST SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 6. KURITI SRINIVAS RAO, AGE 45 YEARS OCC. DY DIRECTOR, CHIEF PLANNING OFFICE,COLLECTOR OFFICE, VIZIANAGARAM VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. POGIRI RAJASEKHAR NAIDU, S/O SATYAM NAIDU AGE 31 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE S.RANGARAYAPURAM VILLAGE,G.S.PURAM POST SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 8. POGIRI SATYAM NAIDU, S/O LATE SURAPU NAIDU @ SURAYYA AGE 62 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE S.RANGARAYAPURAM VILLAGE,G.S.PURAM POST SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 9. POGIRI SRIRAMULU NAIDU, S/O LATE SURAPU NAIDU @ SURAYYA AGE 52 YEARS OCC. AGRICULTURE S.RANGARAYAPURAM VILLAGE,G.S.PURAM POST SANTHAKAVITI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TOTA TEJESWARA RAO 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... to issue a writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondents No.3 and 4 in interfering in the civil disputes in OS.NO.24/2016 in the Petitioners schedule land For an extent of Ac.O-96 cents in sy.No.250 ,for an extent Ac 1.00 cents in sy.no.151-3 for an extent of Ac.0.87 cents Sy.no.151-3 ,for an extent of Ac.2-76 cents covered by Sy.no.152-7 ,for an extent of Ac.0.25 cents and for an Extent of Ac 0.50 cents in sy No.227-26 at seetarampuram and S.Rangarayapuram villages santakaviti Mandal Srikakulam district and harassing the petitioner by calling to the police station with collusion of the Respondent No.6 to 9 without any jurisdiction is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Art.14,21 and 300(A) Of the Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural Justice Consequently direct the Respondents No.3 and 4 not to interfere in the Petitioner schedule land For an extent of Ac.0-96 cents in sy.No.250 ,for an extent Ac 1.00 cents in sy.no.151- 3 for an extent of Ac.0.87 cents Sy.no.151-3 ,for an extent of Ac.2-76 cents covered by Sy.no.152-7 ,for an extent of Ac.0.25 cents and for an Extent of Ac 0.50 cents in sy No.227-26 at seetarampuram and S.Rangarayapuram villages santakaviti mandal Srikakulam district pending disposal of civil suit in OS.N0.24/2016 on the file of Senior civil judge at Rajam Srikakulam District.” 2. Heard Sri T.Tejeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Md.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that basing on the complaint of the unofficial respondent, the police have registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No.148 of 2021 of Santhakviti Police Station, for 3 the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 379 read with 34 IPC. 4. Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed to follow due process of law regarding the crime registered against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:05.11.2025 ASR 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.5259 of 2022 Dt.05.11.2025 Asr