1 APHC010063142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4354/2026 Between: N Selvi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KODE RAMESH 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 a writ order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of Respondent No 2 to 4 in failing to act upon representation dated 12072025 given by the petitioner for providing police protection to the Petitioner to enter into land and restrain the Respondent nos.5 to 10 not to construct the house in my land even though there is status quo on the subject property comprising land situated at Kanumapacharllapalli Village in Sy.No.67/2 measuring 2.50 cents granted under DKT Patta No.5/4/1407 dated 01.04.1998 is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300A and consequently pleased to direct respondent No 4 to consider the petitioners representation dated 12.07.2025 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. Sri Kode Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, despite submission of a representation dated 12.07.2025 by the petitioner, the respondent police have not acted upon the same. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the nature of the dispute pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature. Therefore, the police advised the petitioner to invoke appropriate civil remedies. 5. In fact, if the representation of the petitioner discloses a cognizable offence and the same is not being registered by the police concerned, the petitioner has an alternative, effective, and efficacious remedy under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) or under Section 210 read with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. 6. Thus, there is an alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. If the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature, the petitioner has another efficacious remedy by filing a suit seeking injunction against the unofficial respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. In any event, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedies under both civil and criminal law. 3 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for redressal of his grievance by filing a complaint under Section 190 read with Section 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ / Section 210 read with Section 223 of ‘the BNSS.’ 8. In view of the above, 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: 23.02.2026 KMS 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4354 of 2026 Date: 23.02.2026 KMS 147 5