APHC010214032026 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: 12084/2026 Between: 1. JARUGULLA VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY,, W/O LATE RAJAPPALA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED EMPLOYEE,RESIDENT OF D.NO. 1-61, ETCHERLA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.522237 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATHI.522503 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ETCHERLA POLICE STATION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 532001 5. MENDA RATNALAMMA, , W/O LATE CHINNAVADU, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-59, ETCHERLA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT532001 6. MENDA RAJARAO, , S/O LATE CHINNAVADU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, EX-SARPANCH, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-59, ETCHERLA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 7. MENDA BABURAO, , S/O LATE CHINNAVADU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-59, ETCHERLA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA 2 MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 8. MENDA RAMARAO, S/O LATE CHINNAVADU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-59, ETCHERLA VILLAGE, ETCHERLA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.532001 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 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 Mandamus declaring aggrieved by the action of the respondents more specifically respondent No. 4, in interfering with the matters of civil disputes under the instigation of Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 with respect to the agricultural land consisting of about 3000 Eucalyptus trees and Jio cell tower, in Sy.No. 22-6A to an extent of Ac. 2.58 cents situated at Etcherla Revenue Village, Etcherla Mandal, Ponduru Sub-division, Srikakulam District, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and also violating Article 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with matters of civil disputes with respect to the agricultural land consisting of about 3000 Eucalyptus trees and Jio cell tower, in Sy.No. 22-6A to extent of Ac. 2.58 cents situated at Etcherla Revenue Village, Etcherla Mandal, Ponduru Sub-division, Srikakulam District and pass…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent No.4, at the instigation of Respondents Nos.5 to 8, have illegally interfered in a purely civil dispute concerning her ancestral agricultural land in Sy.No.22‑6A, Etcherla Village, despite her lawful title, possession, and an injunction order granted by the Civil Court, by obstructing construction, seizing 3 her tractor, and threatening false criminal cases, thereby abusing their authority and violating her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the allegations made by the Petitioner are unfounded and exaggerated. It is submitted that Respondent No.4, being a public authority, has acted strictly within the bounds of law and has not interfered in any civil dispute as alleged. The official respondents are duty-bound to maintain law and order, and any action taken was only in discharge of their statutory responsibilities, without prejudice to the Petitioner’s civil rights. 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 Police not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.5 to 8, 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