Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56692 (AP)

D.Bhuvaneswary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/23646/2022 · 2025-11-17

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010340632022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 23646/2022 Between: 1. D.BHUVANESWARY, W/O D.PADMANABHA REDDY, AGED- 42 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION R/O 9-383, MAIN BAZAR, TADIPATRI TOWN, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TADIPATRI UPGRADED RURAL POLICE STATION, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 4. S NARASIMHA REDDY, S/O SAREDDY LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, AGED- 31 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS R/O GANGADEVI PALLI, TADIPATRI (M), ANANTAPUR 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of officials of Respondent No.3 in calling Petitioner to Police Station, at the behest of Respondent No.4, for resolving a civil dispute with respect to Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.369 admeasuring an extent to Ac.1.02 Cents situated at Gangadevipalli Village, Tadipatri (M), Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of rights of citizens envisaged under the articles of Constitution of India as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the officials of Respondent No.3 to not to call the Petitioner for resolving any civil dispute with respect to Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.369 admeasuring an extent to Ac.1.02 Cents situated at Gangadevipalli Village, Tadipatri (M), Anantapur District and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: This 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, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action on the part of officials of Respondent No.3 in calling Petitioner to Police Station, at the behest of Respondent No.4, for resolving a civil dispute with respect to Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.369 admeasuring an extent to Ac.1.02 Cents situated at Gangadevipalli Village, Tadipatri (M), Anantapur District as illegal and arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of rights of citizens envisaged under the articles of Constitution of India as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the officials of Respondent No.3 to not to call the Petitioner for resolving any civil dispute with respect to Petitioner's Agriculture Land in Survey No.369 admeasuring an extent to Ac.1.02 Cents situated at Gangadevipalli Village, Tadipatri (M), Anantapur District and to pass ....” Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent State. Perused the material on record. The grievance of the Petitioner is that respondent Police are calling her to the Police Station and insisting to settle the civil disputes with respondent No.4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Police on written instructions would submit that till date no representation is received either from the Petitioner or from respondent No.4. The facts of the case clearly establish that the dispute is purely civil in nature and respondent Police never interfered in the matter and would submit that this writ petition may be disposed of by passing appropriate orders. 3 In that view, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedy before appropriate forum according to law. 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. 23646 of 2022 18.11.2025 Mjl /*