APHC010504672022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 30987/2022 Between: DEVARASETTY VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATESWARLU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, R/O. DORNALA VILLAGE, DORNALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, DORNALA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. PIKKILI LAKSHMAIAH, S/0. NAGA SESHU, R/O. DORNALA VILLAGE, DORNALA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. YADAVALLI RAMESH 2. 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: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not granting police aid to the petitioner to use and enjoy of the land extent of Ac.3.38 cents Sy.No.310/2 of Yedavalli Village of Dornala Mandal, Prakasam District for which ad-interim injunction is granted in the petitioner's favour against the 4th respondent in I.A.No. 322 of 2021 in 2 OS.No.245/2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur, dated 02-06-2021 and in spite of the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dornala directing the 3rd respondent to give police aid as illegal, arbitrary and direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to grant police aid.” 2. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that they filed suit in O.S.No.245 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur. In the said suit, on the application filed by the Petitioner seeing temporary injunction, an ex parte ad-interim injunction has been granted in favour of the Petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that, thereafter, they have submitted a representation to the Police to give Police protection, but the same was not considered. Then the Petitioner approached the District Collector, who forwarded the same to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, who in turn forwarded the same to the concerned Tahsildar. It is further submitted that, though the Tahsildar has recommended the Police to give protection, the Police did not respond. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, since it is a civil matter, unless the Court directs, they cannot provide Police Protection in this matter. 5. Sri Yadavalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the unofficial Respondent would submit that, basing on the ad-interim injunction order, the Petitioner is seeking police protection and the petition may be disposed of since the civil suit is pending between the parties before the competent Civil Court. 3 6. Considering the submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, both parties are at liberty to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court, where the civil suit is pending. 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:13.11.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.30987 of 2022 Dt.13.11.2025 Dinesh