APHC010102222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5898/2026 Between: Bollu Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. SHAIK MD UMAR ABDULLAH 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 high-handed action of the respondents No.4 to 9 in keeping the premises of Kanaparthi Manga Radha Krishana Kalyana Mandapam and Seetha Ramula Temple situated in Sy.No.857/2A of Radha Krishna Nagar, Badvel Town and Municipality, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, under lock and key at the instance of the respondents No.10 to 14, against whom a civil suit in O.S.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Badvel, YSR District for declaration of title and permanent injunction is pending adjudication as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to well-established legal principles aprat from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional 2 rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct (a) the respondents No.4 to 9 to unlock the Kanaparthi Manga Radha Krishana Kalyana Mandapam and Seetha Ramula Temple situated in Sy.No.857/2A of Radha Krishna Nagar, Badvel Town and Municipality, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, forthwith, (b) the respondents No.4 to 9 not to interfere with my rights over the premises of Kanaparthi Manga Radha Krishana Kalyana Mandapam and Seetha Ramula Temple situated in Sy. No.857/2A of Radha Krishna Nagar, Badvel Town and Municipality, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pass such other order(s)…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the police, in collusion with the unofficial respondents, have highhandedly locked the disputed premises, despite civil suits being pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.10 to 14. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submits that the police have never interfered in the civil disputes and have not cooperated with the unofficial respondents in locking the disputed premises. 5. Sri Srivaram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14, submits that respondent No.14 is in possession of the disputed premises and that the petitioner has highhandedly interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. He further submits that the police have not played any role in the civil dispute and have never interfered in the same, nor cooperated with respondent No.14 in locking the disputed premises. 3 6. It appears that civil suits are pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.10 to 14. Indeed, O.S. No.25 of 2022, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Badvel, has been filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against respondent Nos.10 to 14, and the said suit is pending adjudication. Respondent Nos.10 to 14 have also filed O.S. No.26 of 2022, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Badvel, seeking permanent injunction, which is also pending. 7. Thus, the petitioner claims ownership of the disputed property and asserts that he is in possession of the same while seeking permanent injunction. On the other hand, respondent Nos.10 to 14 also claim that they are in possession of the property and have filed a suit seeking permanent injunction. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no necessity for the petitioner to file an interlocutory application seeking to restrain respondent Nos.10 to 14 from interfering with his peaceful possession, inasmuch as the petitioner is already in possession of the property. He further submits that in the suit filed by respondent Nos.10 to 14 in O.S. No.26 of 2022, in the short cause title, the plaintiffs have mentioned that the petitioner is a resident of D.No.4-1-714/2, Radhakrishna Nagar, which is the schedule property of the suit. 9. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14 submits that respondent Nos.10 to 14 have been in possession and enjoyment of the 4 property, as stated in paragraph No.6 of the plaint therein, and that they have filed the necessary documents to establish their possession and enjoyment. 10. Be that as it may, neither the petitioner nor respondent Nos.10 to 14 have obtained any ex parte interim injunction from the competent Civil Court. In any event, this Court cannot undertake the exercise of determining who is in possession of the property and who has trespassed into the same. It is the exclusive domain of the learned Civil Court to decide such intricate issues relating to property. 11. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 to 14 further submits that, based on the report submitted by the police, the Mandal Executive Officer issued proceedings purportedly under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) directing both parties not to enter the disputed premises until further orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Badvel. 12. Admittedly, civil suits in respect of the disputed property are pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Badvel. Be that as it may, when civil suits concerning the disputed property are pending before the competent Civil Court, the Mandal Executive Officer has no authority to pass any orders, much less orders purportedly under Section 164 of ‘the BNSS’. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the allegation that respondent police had entered into the disputed premises of the suit schedule property and that the police are interfering in the civil dispute, as 5 evidenced by certain photographs and a video filed before this Court, there shall be a direction to the police not to interfere in the civil dispute henceforth. 14. 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: 05.03.2026 Note:- Issue C.C by 07.03.2026 B/o KMS 6 KMS THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5898 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 Note:- Issue C.C by 07.03.2026 B/o KMS 64