APHC010004002024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION No. 883/2024 Between: 1. V.TAYAMMA, W/O.LATE V.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O.BOYACHHINNAGANNA PALLE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, PALAMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, V. KOTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. MUNI RATNAM, S/O.DORA SWAMY NAIDU R/O.RAMANADHAPURAM H/O BOYACHHINNAGANNA PALLE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. MADHU, S/O. MUNI RATNAM R/O.RAMANADHAPURAM H/O.BOYACHHINNAGANNA PALLE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. NARAYANAPPA, S/O.DORA SWAMY NAIDU R/O.BOYACHHINNAGANNA PALLE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. HARISH, S/O.NARAYANAPPA R/O.BOYACHHINNAGANNA PALLE VILLAGE, V.KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. SALAMMA, W/O.NARAYANAPPA R/O. BOYACHHINNAGARINA PALLE VILLAGE, V. KOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No.2 2 to 4 not taken any action of the petitioner's representation/complaint dated 13.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 (as per the Judgment by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No.5883 of 2020 dt.08.08.2023 in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) is illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to register the complaint and investigate the petitioner's representation/complaint dated 13.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRAKASH C Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: The instant Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “.... to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 4 not taken any action of the petitioner's representation/complaint dated. 13.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 (as per the Judgment by the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No.5883 of 2020 dt.08.08 2023 in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) is illegal, arbitrary violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondents no.2 to 4 to register the complaint and investigate the petitioner's representation/complaint dated 13.01.2022 and 17.01.2022 forthwith and pass ...” None represented for the Petitioner. Heard learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. At the time of hearing, learned Government Pleader for Home placed on record the Written Instructions received from respondent No.4. Further, it is submitted that Petitioner and the unofficial respondents are having civil disputes in respect of the land situated at Boyachinnagannapalli village, V.Kota with regard to survey of the subject land and fixing the boundary stones and it is purely civil in nature. Petitioner gave a representation on 10.01.2022 in Spandana Programme, where, the matter is settled between the parties. In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Mjl/* 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 883 of 2024 06.10.2025 Mjl /*