IN the high court OF ANDHRA PRADESH ;; (Special Original Jurisdictio DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ■■■ amaravati n) FIVE present the honourable SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N --5531OF2025 WRIT PETITin^f Between; Snpada Satyanarayana Cultivation, R/o. Kothamani . S/o. Subbarao, Aged about 60 ijeru Village, Kajuluru Mandal years, Occ Kakinada District. -PETITIONER , -P, and • he State ofAndhra Pradesh, Rep, by its Principal Oepadment Of Home, Secretariat Bondings, Guntur District, A.P 5. Matha Chinnaiah, Occ Cultivation, R/o. District. " Cullivar^p ^bout District. '^“‘'^^"lanjeru Village, Kajuluru Mandal Matha Ammaji,W/o. Matha Chinnaiah, Aged C2-on,Rfo.Kothamanjeru Village, Kajuluru Secretary, Velagapudi, Amaravathi District. District. Kajuluru Mandal, S/o. Matha Satyanarayana. Aged about 58 Kothamanjeru Village, Kajuluru years, Mandal, Kakinada 22 years, Occ Kakinada about 50 years, Occ Mandal Kakinada -respondents in the 1 - in the aff,dav,t filed therewith, the High Court Petition under Article the c/rcumstances stated i may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the police Aid sought by the petitioner in relation to the construction of a compound wall within the limits his property which has been obstructed by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 despite their suit O.S.No.353/2018 for a declaration that the respondent No.5 be the absolute owner of the plaint B-Schedule property and for recovery of possession on the file of the court of the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-1 Addl. Judicial Magistrate, Kakinada which was dismissed vide judgment and decree Dt.27.01.2021 and further the appeal A.S.No.18/2021 on the file of the court of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada confirming the judgment vide judgment and decree Dt.28.01.2025, and in not taking any action on the crime registered vide FIR No.22/2025, Dt.08.02.2025 and the action of respondents 5 to 7 in demolishing the wall raised by the petitioner as bad, illegal, arbitrary, vioaltive of Article 16, 19, 21 AND 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide police aid to the petitioner in constructing the compound wall. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 respondents 2 to 4 consider the representation made by the petitioner on 12.02.2025, during the pendency of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7:--- The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010105842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) \s\m [3457] a WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5533/2025 Between: Sripada Satyanarayana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following Order: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of a small portion of land admeasuring The 13.66sq.yards and has constructed a thatched house. petitioner intended to construct a compound wall. The respondent Nos.5 to 7 have claimed the property and filed O.S.No.353 of 2018, seeking a declaration of ownership of the property, which they alleged was under their illegal occupation. The said suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7, A.S.No.18 of 2021, was also dismissed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, However, respondent Nos.5 to 7 are continuing to Kakinada. i 2 interfere with the petitioner’s possession, alleging offences under Section 329 (3), 324(4), 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short “BNS”). Though the police have registered an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner, no further action has been taken and the respondents are continuing to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and obstructing the petitioner from constructing the compound wall. 2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the FIR has been registered based on the complaint of the petitioner and contends that the issue relates to a boundary wall dispute. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also furnished copies of photographs which evidently show that the proposed compound wall between the two properties is under construction. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner submitted a representation on 12.02.2025 to the 4*'^ respondent. 5. Under these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose off the writ petition at the stage of admission, directing the petitioner to submit a proper representation to the concerned authorities and the 4*^ respondent is hereby directed to take 3 necessary steps in pursuance of the representation of the petitioner in accordance with the law. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K. SRINIVASA RAJU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SB N OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 3. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Kakinada, Kakinada District. 4. The Station House Officer, Gollapalem Police Station, Kajuluru Mandal, Kakinada District. 5. One CC to Sri Uday Kumar Vampugadavala, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies. ssb / HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.5533 of 2025 S’ 1 2 MAR 2025 ni ^ ^ Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS