1 APHC010473222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 24047/2025 Between: 1. PAPPALA VENKATA SUBBA RAO, S/O LATE P CHANDRA RAO, AGED 60 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.5-52, MAIN ROAD, SRUNGA VRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. PAPPALA VENKATESWARA RAO,, S/O LATE P CHANDRA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.5-52 MAIN ROAD, SRUNGA VRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PEDDAPURAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TUNI RURAL CIRCLE, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER S L OF POLICE, THONDANGI POLICE STATION, THONDANGI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. YADALA NOOKA RAJU, , S/O LOVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O RAMALAYAM VEEDHI GOLLAPETA, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2 7. YADALA PEDDIYYA, , S/O LOVARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, GOLLAPETA, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 8. NEMALA DEVULLU, S/O MUSALAYYA, AGED 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O B.C. COLONY, BESIDE ZP.H SCHOOL, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 9. YANAMALA SURYA RAO, S/O THAMAYYA, AGED 60 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O B.C. COLONY, BESIDE ZP.H SCHOOL, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 10. YADALA SRINU, S/O NOOKA RAJU, AGED 38 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, GOLLAPETA, SRUNGAVRUKSHAM VILLAGE, THONDANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V JAGGI REDDY 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, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 5 herein in not providing Police Protection/for Aid in implementing the Decree of Injunction granted in O.S No.302 of 2024, on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tuni, in respect of lands to an extent of Ac.0.90.cts in R.S.No.401/2 (old S.No.167), an extent of Ac.0.34.cts in R.S.No.400/17 (old S.No.167), and an extent of Ac.0.33.cts in R.S.No.413/2 (old S.No.167), Patta No.1450, total to an extent of Ac.1.57.cts of Kodada Village, H/o Thondangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District, as illegal, 3 arbitrary, non-exercising the powers vested with the office and violation of Arts 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 herein to provide the Police Protection/Aid in implementing the permanent Injunction in O.S No.302 of 2024 stated supra and pass and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper.” 2. Heard Sri T.V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Md. Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. None represented for the unofficial respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that notices sent to the unofficial respondents returned as refused. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners herein filed O.S.No.302/2024 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Tuni, seeking permanent injunction against the unofficial respondents herein, who were shown as defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the said suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the defendants have refused to accept notice and have remained ex parte before the trial Court. The decree has been passed in favour of the petitioners vide Judgment dated 07.07.2025 granting permanent injunction against the defendants, who are the unofficial respondents herein. 4. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the respondent No.5 is directed to look into the representation of the petitioners dated 04.09.2025 and take appropriate steps to protect their rights over the property so long as the decree is in their favour. 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:07.10.2025 Vns