APHC010131102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7194/2026 Between: 1.CHALIVENDRAM SUBBARAYYUDU, S/O KONDADAYYA, MALE, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O D.N0.7B-11-4, VANKENENI VARI STREET, THURUPU VEEDHI, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI-522237 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARKAPUR DISTRICT, AT MARKAPUR-523316. 3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAMUR MANDAL POLICE STATION, AT PAMUR, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-523108. 4.AKULA KONDAMMA, W/O ANJENEYALU, FEMALE, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT- 523108. 5.AKULA MOHAN RAO, S/O ANJENEYALU, MALE. AGED 33 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE, PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT- 523108. 6.AKULA MALAYADRI, S/O ANJENEYALU , MALE. AGED 32 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE,PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT- 523108. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO 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 inaction of the respondents No 2 and 3 in not considering the representation dated 26.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner seeking police protection as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for safeguarding his life and property and to prevent interference by respondents 4 to 6 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac 1 25 cents in Sy No 4087 of Pamur Village Pamur Mandal Markapur District and pass…” 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inaction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in failing to extend police protection to the petitioner, despite a registered representation dated 26.02.2026, constitutes a manifest violation of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14, 21 and 300‑A of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the Petitioner, being the absolute owner and lawful possessor of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.408‑7, 1B Khata No.241 of Pamur Village, is entitled to cultivate and enjoy his property free from unlawful interference, and the repeated threats and high‑handed obstruction by Respondent Nos.4 to 6 amount to criminal intimidation and breach of peace. Learned Counsel for the 3 Petitioner would further contend that the police authorities, being custodians of law and order, cannot abdicate their constitutional duty on the specious plea of a “civil dispute,” for the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.,1 has categorically held that disclosure of a cognizable offence obligates immediate police action, and in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar2, it was affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to directing police protection where life and lawful possession are imperilled. The continued passivity of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, despite a subsisting threat to life and property, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and tantamount to indirect State‑aided deprivation of property, thereby warranting the police authorities to forthwith provide effective and continuous protection to the Petitioner and restrain Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from unlawful interference. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposing the writ, submits that the Petitioner has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 without exhausting efficacious statutory remedies, and that the relief prayed for is in the nature of private protection against alleged interference by relatives, which squarely partakes of a civil dispute over possession and enjoyment of agricultural land. It is submitted that the police authorities cannot be compelled to adjudicate civil rights or act as arbiters of title, and their role is confined to maintenance of law and order. The representation dated 26.02.2026, though acknowledged, does 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 2 (2006) 4 SCC 501 4 not disclose any cognizable offence warranting immediate police intervention, and the Petitioner has already divested ownership by executing a registered settlement deed in favour of his daughter, thereby raising questions of locus standi. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable to enforce private rights against private respondents, and that the Petitioner ought to seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court. It is therefore submitted that the Writ Petition is misconceived, bereft of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine, as no constitutional or statutory violation is made out against the official respondents. 5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both the learned Counsel and the material placed before this Court, this Court is mindful that civil disputes over title and possession must be adjudicated before competent forums, the duty of the police to maintain law and order and prevent unlawful interference cannot be abdicated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the representation dated 26.02.2026 submitted by the Petitioner shall be considered by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a period of two weeks. 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: 24.03.2026 VTS