APHC010266492024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 13273/2024 Between: 1. D. PEDDA OBUL RAJU,, S/O D. SUBBA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC FARMER, R/O. DOOR NO.5-334, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. A. SATISH KUMAR,, S/O A. GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O. DOOR NO.5-333, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. D. OBUL RAJU,, S/O D. PEDDA OBUL RAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.5-335, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. G. SUREKHA,, W/O DEVI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DOOR NO.5-330, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. M. BALAJI NAIK,, S/O M. VENKATA RAMANA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO.5-326, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. VK. DAMODARAM,, S/O VK KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC CENTRING WORK, R/O. DOOR NO.5-229, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RENIGUNTA POLICE STATION, RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, KARAKAMBADI VILLAGE, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2 5. THE KARAKAMBADI PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KARAKAMBADI, RENIGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. T DHANUNJAYA REDDY, S/O. TV SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO. 2-14, PENAGALURU VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 7. K NARAYANA SWAMY, S/O K. JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.2-14, PENAGALURU VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. 8. K KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O SEETHARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. DOOR NO.2-14, PENAGALURU VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SANAGA ASHOK KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. ADARSHITHA KILARU 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 action of the 3rd respondent forced the petitioners and others to vacate their properties by sold to the 6th to 8th respondents for meagre price, is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and voilative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent not to pressurized the petitioners to sell their property to the 6th to 8th respondents for meagre price and not to vacate the petitioners from their house an extent of Ac.0-02 cents with Door No.5-334, Door No.5-333, Door No.5-335, Door No.5-330, Door No.5-326, Door No.5-229 with assessment Nos. with assessment Nos. 6611, 6610, 6612, 6607, 6602, 6554 in survey No.548/3 of Karakambadi Village, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati District, erstwhile Chittoor District without following due process of law.” 2. Sri Sanaga Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, it is a case of interference of Police in the civil matter. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.3 is insisting the Petitioners 3 to vacate the schedule land which is a patta land sell the same to Respondent Nos.6 to 8. 3. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that, on the complaint given by Respondent No.6, the Police called the Petitioners to the Police Station for preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted that, both parties appeared before the Police on 27.04.2024. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that, Respondent No.6 filed a suit in O.S.No.84 of 2023 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Tirupati and the same is pending. It is submitted that, after enquiry, the Police, having understood that the matter is of civil nature, advised both parties to pursue their issue before the competent Civil Court. It is submitted that the Police never interfered in the civil disputes and never insisted the Petitioners to vacate the property. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 5. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, Police are directed not to interfere with the civil disputes between the parties, except under due process of law. 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:29.12.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.13273 of 2024 Dt.29.12.2025 Dinesh