APHC010651172022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38841/2022 Between: 1. AKKENA SATYAM NAIDU, S/O. LATE APPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 2. AKKENA SURYANARAYNA, S/O SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AR 3. AKKENA RAMA RAO, S/O. SATYAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE, R/O. RAVIVALA.SA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM 'DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, AP.. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANYAM DISTRICT, PARVATHIUPURAM, AR 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, PALAKONDA DIVISION, MANAYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, AP. 2 4. THE TAHSILDAR, AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, VEERAGHATTAM MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AR 5. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEERAGHATTAM POLICE STATION, PALAKONDA DIVISION, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 6. AKKENA SIMHACHALAM, SON OF LATE APPLASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 7. SMT AKKENA CHINNAMMI, W/O. CHINA RAMI NAIDU, ALIAS RAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANGGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 8. SMT AKKENNA SATTAMMA, W/O. LATE SIVUN NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 9. SMT AKKENNA SUBADRARNMA, 2ND WIFE OF PEDA RAMI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP. 10. AKKINA SIVUN NAIDU, S/O LAXMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC-AGRICTILTURE, R/O, RAVIVALASA VILLAGE OF GURUGUBILLI MANDAL, MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT), AP ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.5 herein in not respecting the directions of the 4th respondent herein vide Lr.No.11/2022/A/ dated 10.01.2022 and Lr.No.11/2022/A/ dated 29.07.2022 is arbitrary , illegal, unconstitutional and also depriving the rights as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India for not protecting with the police aid to the subject lands to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.111-1, to 3 an extent Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.111-4, to an extent of 1.13 cents in Sy.No.111-5, to an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.111-6 and to an extent .of Ac.O.09 cents in Sy.No.111-9 to the total extent of Ac.2.53 cents Kadakella Revenue Village of Veeraghattam Mandal, Paravathipuram Manyam District and request the 2nd respondent herein to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for not implementing the orders in the light of the Apex Court judgment P.R.Muralidharan and others Vs Swamy Dharmanada Theertha Padar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 501 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 to direct the 2nd respondent to give protection by way of police to the petitioners herein from the respondents 6 to 10 herein to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.111-1, to an extent Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.111-4, to an extent of 1.13 cents in Sy.No.111-5, to an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.111-6 and to an extent of Ac.0.09 cents in Sy.No.111-9 to the total extent of Ac.2.53 cents Kadakella Revenue Village of Veeraghattam Mandal, Paravathipuram Manyam District, pending disposal of the above said writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 38841 of 2022 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 declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.5 herein in not respecting the directions of the 4th respondent herein vide Lr.No.11/2022/A/ dated 10.01.2022 and Lr.No.11/2022/A/ dated 29.07.2022 is arbitrary , illegal, unconstitutional and also depriving the rights as guaranteed under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India for not protecting with the police aid to the subject lands to an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.111-1, to an extent Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.111-4, to an extent of 1.13 cents in Sy.No.111-5, to an extent of Ac.0.17 cents in Sy.No.111-6 and to an extent .of Ac.O.09 cents in Sy.No.111-9 to the total extent of Ac.2.53 cents Kadakella Revenue Village of Veeraghattam Mandal, Paravathipuram Manyam District and request the 2nd respondent herein to take appropriate action against the 6th respondent for not implementing the orders in the light of the Apex Court judgment P.R.Muralidharan and others Vs Swamy Dharmanada Theertha Padar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 501 and pass…” 2. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Farook, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the official respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the unofficial respondents herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.113 of 1992, that was decreed in their favour vide Judgment dated 30.07.1999. Against which, the petitioners herein preferred First Appeal in A.S.No.39 of 1999, which was allowed in the 5 favour of the petitioners herein vide Judgment dated 23.02.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the unofficial respondents herein preferred Second Appeal in S.A.No.360 of 2001 which was dismissed vide Judgment dated 29.09.2018. The fact remains that the petitioners herein have not approached the Court or obtained any decree but the unofficial respondents herein having filed the suit for permanent injunction and they have lost the same in the Second Appeal. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, would submit that the case and counter case against the both parties are pending vide C.C.Nos.690 of 2022 and 767 of 2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palakonda. He would further submit that Security proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C., vide M.C.No.51 of 2022 was also initiated against both the parties before M.E.M., Veeraghattam Mandal. 5. Considering the submissions and the recording these circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the parties are at liberty to pursue their remedies before the appropriate forum according to law. The petitioners are at liberty to submit their representation to the police to protect from alleged dispossession as and when required, if so advised. 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: 06.11.2025. UPS 6 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.38841 of 2022 Dated.06.11.2025 UPS 205