APHC010233662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 12175/2026 Between: 1. ANUMALUSETTY JAGADISH,, S/O LATE VENKATA RAJU, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO 11-3-30, JAMPAVARI STREET, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRICT.531001 2. GUMPINA RAMESH GUPTA,, S/O LATE VENKATA PYDI SARVESWARA RAO, AGED 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 7-9-29, MALLIMANUGULAVARI STREET, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPALLE DISTRIET.531001 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI. GUNTUR DISTRICT, AMARAVATHI.522237 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH.520001 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530001 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WEST SUB- DIVISION, MADHAVADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530018. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOPALAPATNAM POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM.530001 6. THE TAHSILDAR, GOPALAPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM .530001 2 7. SMT MEDISETTI ANANTHA LAKSHMI, W/O.APPALA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO 16-16/3,4,5, 1ST FLOOR, V.S.K. HOMES, VIRAT NAGAR, R.R.V. PURAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM-29.530018 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. THATHIREDDY ASHOK SRIVASTAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly Respondent Nos 5 and 6 in interfering with the purely civil dispute pertaining to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the Petitioners as being wholly without jurisdiction illegal arbitrary malafide and in gross violation of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents Nos 5 and 6 to refrain from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject Property of the Petitioners pending final adjudication of the civil dispute before the competent Civil Court and Pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Thathireddy Ashok Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners, being the absolute owners in lawful possession of the schedule property under duly registered sale deeds and having perfected their title through mutation of records and payment of statutory dues, are now confronted with unwarranted interference by the Respondent No.7, whose earlier claim of tenancy has already been negatived by a competent civil court. 3 Despite the subsistence of an ad‑interim injunction restraining such interference, the Respondents Nos.5 and 6, instead of extending police aid and maintaining law and order, have actively obstructed the Petitioners’ enjoyment of their property, thereby usurping the jurisdiction of civil courts and rendering judicial orders nugatory. Such arbitrary inaction and interference not only infringe the Petitioners’ constitutional right to property under Article 300‑A of the Constitution of India, but also amount to abdication of statutory duty, warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to restrain the Respondents from meddling with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession pending adjudication of the civil dispute. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, inasmuch as the dispute pertains to rival civil claims of ownership and possession over the schedule property, which has already been adjudicated in O.S.No.493 of 2017 and is presently sub judice in appeal before the learned VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is submitted that upon receipt of a Dial‑112 distress call on 04.04.2026, police personnel promptly reached the spot and found both groups asserting competing claims, whereafter they pacified the parties and advised recourse to civil remedies. Subsequently, reports were lodged by both sides alleging trespass, assault, and theft. However, the allegations were mutually contradictory and suspicious, as both parties were present at the site when police arrived. In such circumstances, the police, acting strictly within the ambit of law, deemed 4 it appropriate to conduct a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of ‘the BNSS’, and simultaneously submitted a report under Section 164 thereof to the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate to prevent breach of peace and maintain public tranquillity. It is further submitted that except for ordinary allegations of theft, punishable under general law, the remaining issues are civil in nature, and the police cannot usurp the jurisdiction of civil courts by enforcing possession or interpreting injunction orders. The Petitioners’ grievance is essentially against private parties, and the official respondents have acted bona fide, within statutory limits, to preserve law and order. Hence, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to convert civil disputes into writ proceedings, and it is urged to dismiss Writ Petition as being devoid of merits. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and upon hearing both sides, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondents Nos.5 and 6 not to henceforth interfere in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioners and Respondent No.7, except in accordance with due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.04.2026 VTS