APHC010044772026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2567/2026 Between: 1.KONJETI SATYANNARAYANA, S/O KONJETI, AGED 68 YEARS, RADHAKRISHNAIAH, R/O 7-28, BIG BAJARU, TANGUTURUPURAM CENTRE, TANGUTURU, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DGP, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 3.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523002. 4.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001. 5.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGARAYAKONDA POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523101. 6.THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANGUTURU POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523274. 7.POKURI SWATHI, W/O. RAGHU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. KATTUBADIPALEM VILLAGE, TANGUTUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-523274. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.SANNEBOINA BHARGAV 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 order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 5th respondent in calling the petitioners to the police station and threatening them to face dire consequences if the words of 5th respondent is not obeyed pertaining to the land covered in 881A1 an extent of Ac 1 00 Cents situated in T Narsapuram Mandal Tirumaladevi peta Village Eluru District and involvement of 5th respondent in civil matters as illegal arbitrary and contrary to the directions of the Honble High Court and Apex Court and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner for the land covered in 881A1 an extent of Ac 1 00 Cents situated in T Narsapuram Mandal Tirumaladevi peta Village Eluru District and to pass” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri Sanneboina Bhargav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that Respondent No.6 has been called the Petitioner to the Police Station without unnecessarily and solely at the behest of Respondent No.7. 4. Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.7 had lodged a PGRS complaint, pursuant to which Respondent No.6 required the presence of the Petitioner for a preliminary enquiry. It is further submitted that Respondent No.7 herself failed to appear before the Police Station for the said enquiry. 3 5. Upon considering the submissions advanced by both the learned Counsel, Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to Respondent No.6 not to call the Petitioner any further in relation to the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.7. However, in the event any case is registered against the Petitioner at the instance of Respondent No.7 or any other individual, the Investigating Officer/Respondent No.6 is at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Dated: 10.02.2026 VTS 4 5