Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16477 (AP)

BANGI NAGENDRUDU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/3756/2026 · 2026-02-09

Y Lakshmana Rao

Original Suitbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010062252026 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: 3756/2026 Between: Bangi Nagendrudu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU 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 an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in interfering with civil disputes by calling the petitioner to the Police Station frequently and threatening them with dire consequences of eviction by using Police force without any authority or jurisdiction in violating order passed by this Honble Court in WP.No.14577 of 2025 where the Honble Court granted interim direction on 19.06.2025 as illegal arbitrary highhanded cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently to direct the 3rd respondent not interfere with civil disputes extent of Ac.5.00 Cents in Survey No.616/Z1 Pamulapadu Village and Mandal Kurnool District and to pass such other order(s)….” 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is interfering in the civil disputes between the petitioner and other persons by frequently calling him to the police station without any authority of law, despite there being an order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14577 of 2025 dated 19.06.2025. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S. No.83 of 2020 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, erected a board in the disputed premises claiming ownership, even though the civil suit is pending. The said act of the petitioner resulted in serious objections from rival parties, leading to tensions in the village and posing a threat to public peace and tranquility. Therefore, respondent No.3 only advised the petitioner to maintain law and order in the village. 5. It is not in dispute that one Shaik Mahaboob Basha instituted O.S. No.83 of 2020 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, against the petitioner seeking permanent injunction. As per the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, no interim order was granted by the learned Trial Court in the said suit. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein filed W.P. No.13364 of 2025. By order dated 15.05.2025, this Court directed respondent Nos.1 to 5 therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners therein over the schedule 3 property situated in Sy. No.616/Z1 and 617/A, to an extent of Ac.3.85 cents, Pamulapadu Village and Mandal, Nandyal District. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an impleadment petition in the said writ petition. The petitioner contends that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and that is the reason why no interim order was passed by the Trial Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the limited grievance of the petitioner that he is being unnecessarily called to the police station and that the police are interfering in a purely civil dispute, it is directed that respondent No.3 shall not summon the petitioner in connection with the civil dispute pending between him and the private parties, including respondent Nos.4 and 5. 7. However, it is made clear that if any law and order issue arises on account of high-handed acts of any of the parties, the police are at liberty to act strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J. Date: 10.02.2026 KMS 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3756 of 2026 Date: 10.02.2026 KMS 145