APHC010070702024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 4010/2024 Between: 1. ARAVETI CHANDRA SHAKER,, S/O LATE AAVETI RAAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 19-660-A, AARVETI NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2. ARAVETI VENUMADAV,, S/O LATE AAVETI RAAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O 19-660-A, AARVETI NAGAR, ANANTHAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 3. ARAVETI VENKATARAMUDU @ VENKTARAMANA, S/O LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 19-4-11-4, ARAVETI NAGAR, GOOTY ROAD, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. ARAVETI SURESH KUMAR,, S/O CHITAMBARAYYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O PERAVALI VILLAGE, SINGANAMAL ANANTAPURA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPURAM, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SINGANAMALA PS, ANANTAPUR 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4010 of 2024 Dated 18.02.2026 ONE TOWN,ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGANAMALA PS,ANANTAPUR ONE TOWN,ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. C.T. IS AMENDED AS PER THE COURT ORDER DT 11.03.2024 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO 02 OF 2024. 5. BUDDALA TIRUPALU, S/O CHINNA TIKKAPPA,AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-7 PERAVALI VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 6. BUDDALA CHINNA TIRUPALU, S/O B CHINNA TIKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1-7 PERAVALI VILLAGE, SINGANAMALA MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME (AP) 2. RAMAKRISHNA AKURATHI 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4010 of 2024 Dated 18.02.2026 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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No 2to 4 in not taking action on the representation of the petitioner dated 07122023 for directin to the Respondent No 4 to provide police protection to the petitioners land in Sy No 346 an extent of Ac 4 40 cents situated at Peravali Village Singanamal Mandal Anantapur District is illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents No 2 to 4 to provide police protection to the petitioners land in Sy No 346 an extent of Ac 4 40 cents situated at Pamidi Village and Mandal Anantapuramu District forthwith and pass…= 2. Mr. K.Srinivas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have instituted O.S.No.298 of 2022 seeking partition of the schedule property and other properties. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.12.2023 requesting respondent No.4 to provide police protection to the petitioners9 land. However, the said representation has not been considered by respondent No.4 in accordance with law, and hence, it is urged to allow the Writ Petition. 3. Sri P.Ajay Babu, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that since a civil dispute is pending between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6, the police are not in a position to provide police protection based merely on the representation of the petitioners. It is further submitted 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4010 of 2024 Dated 18.02.2026 that if any appropriate orders are passed by the competent Civil Court, the police are ready to provide police protection to the petitioners9 land. 4. Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6, submits that they have instituted O.S.No.298 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, seeking partition of the disputed property and other properties, and the suit is pending. Without exhausting the remedies available on the civil side before the competent Court, the petitioners have unnecessarily approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, which is not maintainable, and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have instituted O.S.No.298 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ananthapuram, seeking partition of the schedule property. If it is the contention of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property and that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are threatening their lawful possession and interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of the property, the petitioners, who are defendants in the above suit, are also entitled to file an application seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 8the 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4010 of 2024 Dated 18.02.2026 CPC9). Approaching this Court without exhausting the said remedy is not permissible, as the petitioners have got an alternative efficacious remedy. 7. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the concerned Civil Court seeking temporary injunction. If such an application is filed by the petitioners, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, shall consider it on its9 own merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 8. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 18.02.2026 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.4010 of 2024 Dated 18.02.2026 210 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4010 of 2024 Date: 18.02.2026 RSI