APHC010218032026 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: 11807/2026 Between: 1. YEKKALURI HANUMANTHA REDDY,, .S/O. ANIMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-141 B, PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 2. YEKKALURI ANIL KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.1-141 B, PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AMARAVATI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GARLADINNE P.S, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GARLADINNE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GARLADINNE MANDAL ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731. 5. VETTI GANGAMMA, W/O. VETTI SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 6. VETTI SUBBARAYUDU, S/O. VETTI MAREPPA, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE GARLADINNE MANDAL, 2 ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 7. VETTI VARADHI, .S/O. VETTI MAREPPA, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 8. VETTI ADINARAYANA, VETTI SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 9. VETTI MOHAN, S/O. VETTI VARADHI, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 10. VETTI MARENNA, S/O. VETTI VARADHI, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/O. PENAKACHERLA VILLAGE GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 515731 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for 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 2 to 4 in interfering in a civil dispute which is a Rastha in Sy. No. 220 situated at Penakacherla Village, Garladinne Mandal, Anantapur District, is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere the petitioners land which is a Rastha in Sy. No. 220 situated at Penakacherla Village, Garladinne Mandal, and Anantapur District forthwith and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3 3. Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners, being the recorded owners and in peaceful possession of Survey No.219, sought a legitimate pathway through Survey No.220 by due application under the Public Grievance Redressal System, which was duly inspected and endorsed by the competent revenue authorities, permitting widening of the existing pathway from 13 feet to 15 feet. Acting upon such endorsement, the Petitioners cleared the bund and extended the pathway, but the unofficial respondents, wielding undue influence, procured directions from Respondent No.4 for police protection, resulting in unwarranted police interference and harassment of the Petitioners. It is urged that such conduct is ex-facie without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to the settled dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts that police authorities have no role in civil disputes. The Petitioners, having no efficacious alternative remedy, therefore invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, and consequently directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to forthwith desist from interfering with the Petitioners’ lawful enjoyment of the pathway in Survey No.220. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the grievance projected by the Petitioners is misconceived, inasmuch as the dispute pertains to an alleged pathway in Survey No.220, which is admittedly civil in nature, and the respondent police have no jurisdiction to adjudicate rights over immovable property. It is urged that the role of the police was confined solely to maintaining law and order and 4 preventing breach of peace, and their presence, if any, was purely preventive in nature, without interfering with the Petitioners’ possession or enjoyment of the land. The allegation that the police acted under the influence of the unofficial respondents is emphatically denied, as the police have discharged their duties impartially and strictly in accordance with law. The attempt of the Petitioners to attribute illegality to lawful preventive measures is untenable, and in view of the settled legal position that civil disputes must be agitated before competent civil courts, it is submitted that no cause of action survives against the respondent police, and the Writ Petition, insofar as it concerns them, is liable to be dismissed. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos.2 and 4 not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.5 to 10, without following due process of law. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 30.04.2026 VTS