APHC010053752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3237/2026 Between: 1.GURRAM JACOB,, S/O. LATE JOSAIAH @ DASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RIO. BESTHAVEMULA VILLAGE, MYALAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI.- 522238. 2.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.- 516001. 3.DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DSP OFFICE, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516434 4.THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, JAMMALAMADUGU RURAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT - 516434. 5.SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAMANCHIPATNAM POLICE STATION, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.- 516439. 6.GURRAM VENKATESHWARLU, S/O. LATE G. DEVADANAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. BESTA VEMULA, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISFRICT. - 516439. 7.TAHSILDAR, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 8.MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M SOLOMON RAJU 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 inaction of the respondents 2 to 5 in registering crime against the 6th respondent and his family members despite a complaint dated 23 01 2026 submitted by the petitioner for illegally trespassing the house and site property of the petitioner damaging the petitioners property cutting down Neem Tree aged 7 years trying to Kill and causing loss approximately Rs 2 00 000/ to the petitioner in Besthavemula Revenue Village Mylavaram Mandal YSR Kadapa District as illegal irregular arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Nos 2 to 5 to register the complaint of the petitioner dated 23 01 2026 for causing damage to his compound wall cutting down 7 years Neem Tree and causing loss to a tune of Rs 2 00 000/ in Besthavemula Revenue Village Mylavaram Mandal YSR Kadapa District and to act upon the same and to pass…” 2. Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the arbitrary and apathetic inaction of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in failing to register the Petitioner’s complaint dated 23.01.2026, despite grave allegations of criminal trespass, destruction of immovable property, felling of a seven‑year‑old Neem tree, and an attempted assault causing pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/‑, constitutes a flagrant violation of the Petitioner’s fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that the Respondents, being statutory authorities entrusted with the solemn duty of maintaining law and order, have abdicated 3 their constitutional and legal obligations, thereby rendering their inaction illegal, irregular, and arbitrary. The Petitioner’s grievance is not merely of private injury but of public wrong, for the refusal to act upon a duly lodged complaint undermines the rule of law itself. 3. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, inasmuch as the allegations levelled against Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are unfounded, baseless, and vague. It is submitted further that the endorsement of Respondent No.3 dated 07.01.2026, impugned herein, was issued only after due enquiry into the Petitioner’s complaints dated 09.10.2025 and 08.12.2025, wherein it was revealed upon verification of revenue records and the report of the Tahsildar, Mylavaram Mandal, that the disputed lands to an extent of Ac.3.24 cents in Sy.No.218/2 belong to Thammineni Krishnudu, while the lands to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in Sy.No.219/1 are classified as Migulu Bhoomi (Government land), which fact was admitted by the Petitioner himself in a written statement. 4. It is furthermore submitted that civil proceedings with respect to the said lands are already pending before the competent civil court, and criminal cases vide Cr.Nos.119/2025 and 120/2025 have also been registered against both parties, which are presently under trial before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Jammalamadugu. In such circumstances, the matter is purely civil in nature, and the police authorities have rightly refrained from interfering in the ownership dispute, as their jurisdiction is confined to 4 cognizable offences and not civil adjudication. The Petitioner’s attempt to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 is nothing but an abuse of process, seeking to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding. Hence, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition against Respondent Nos.2 to 4, as no illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of fundamental rights is made out. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 6. Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the allegations levelled against Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are stated to be unfounded, vague, and unsupported by substantive material. It is shown that the endorsement dated 07.01.2026 by Respondent No.3 was issued only after due enquiry into the Petitioner’s earlier complaints dated 09.10.2025 and 08.12.2025, during which verification of revenue records and the Tahsildar’s report established that Ac.3.24 cents in Sy.No.218/2 stands in the name of Thammineni Krishnudu, while Ac.1.00 cent in Sy.No.219/1 is classified as Migulu Bhoomi (Government land), a fact admitted by the Petitioner in writing. It is further brought to notice that civil litigation concerning the said property is already pending before the competent civil court and that criminal proceedings in Cr.Nos.119/2025 and 120/2025 involving both parties are under trial before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu. In these circumstances, the dispute being essentially civil in nature, the police rightly refrained from 5 intervening in matters relating to title and ownership, as their jurisdiction is confined to cognizable offences. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioner to invoke appropriate civil remedy against the unofficial Respondents. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 12.02.2026 VTS