APHC010135182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7177/2026 Between: 1.MADALA RAMBABU, S/O VENKATESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 20-6-30/1, 1ST LINE, RAMALINGESWARAPETA, VIJAYAWADA (URBAN), NTR DISTRICT. -52001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.-522237 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.-522237 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AP POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATHI.-522503 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.-521001 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.-521101 6. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, KRISHNA DISTRICT. .-521101 7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GANNAVARAM POLICE STATION, 2 KRISHNA DISTRICT. .-521101 8. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM.-521001 9. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.-520001 10.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID DIVISION, KRISHNA DISTRICT.-521202 11.THE TAHSILDAR, GANNAVARAMMANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. .- 521101 12.THE GRAMA SURVEYOR, SURAMPALLE VILLAGE, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. .-521101 13.MADALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. MADALA VENKATESWARA RAO, D.NO. 23-35-29, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEAR LABOUR OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 520011 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.C SUMON Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE 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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly Respondent Nos 57 12 and 13 in interfering with my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in a R S No 117/2 admeasuring Ac 1 05 cents b R S No 146/1 admeasuring Ac 6 07 cents and c R S No 146/3 admeasuring Ac 0 40 cents of Surampalle Village Gannavaram Mandal and the coercive action of the Respondent Nos 57 in forcing the removal of the barbed wire fencing as being illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to 3 interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of my property except by following due process of law and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri C.Sumon, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is necessitated by the arbitrary, illegal, and high-handed interference of the Respondent authorities, more particularly Respondent Nos.5 to 7, 12 and 13, in collusion with the Respondent No.13, who is none other than the Petitioner’s brother and an adjacent landholder. The Petitioner is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the subject lands in R.S. Nos.117/2, 146/1, and 146/3 of Surampalle Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District, acquired under duly registered Sale Deeds of 1999 and 2000, and has been in continuous, exclusive enjoyment thereof. In order to safeguard his property from encroachments and stray cattle, the Petitioner lawfully erected barbed wire fencing strictly within the demarcated boundaries, as confirmed by independent licensed surveyors engaged jointly by both parties. However, the Respondent No.13, harbouring ill-will, has instigated the police and revenue authorities to coerce the Petitioner into dismantling the fencing, thereby converting a civil dispute into a matter of police harassment. The Respondent police, without any registered crime or lawful authority, have repeatedly detained the Petitioner, threatened false criminal cases, and compelled his attendance at purported surveys, while the revenue officials, acting mala fide, have manipulated survey proceedings and fabricated records 4 in blatant violation of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, and the principles of natural justice. The purported notice dated 12.11.2025, containing fraudulent entries of identical mobile numbers for all boundary holders, is a glaring example of collusion and colourable exercise of power. The coercive deployment of police force to adjudicate civil disputes relating to immovable property is wholly without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and constitutes abuse of authority. The Petitioner, despite holding valid title deeds and revenue records, is being unlawfully prevented from enjoying his property, and even the Web-Land records have been clandestinely altered without notice. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and devoid of merit, inasmuch as the grievance projected by the Petitioner pertains to a private civil dispute regarding boundaries and possession of immovable property, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Petitioner himself, by way of a representation dated 06.02.2022, invoked the jurisdiction of the Station House Officer, Gannavaram Police Station, alleging obstruction by his brother in fencing his agricultural land. Pursuant thereto, the police authorities, acting strictly within the bounds of law, merely called both parties, conducted an enquiry, and unequivocally advised them that the matter is civil in nature, beyond the competence of the police, and that they must approach 5 either the Revenue Authorities for survey and demarcation or the competent Civil Court for adjudication. It is further submitted that, in pursuance of such advice, both parties agreed to resolve the matter through the Revenue Authorities, and when the Mandal Surveyor attempted survey on 05.03.2026, the same was obstructed by mutual quarrels between the parties, necessitating the limited intervention of the police only to maintain law and order and prevent breach of peace. Except for this lawful intervention, the Respondent police have never coerced, detained, or compelled the Petitioner to remove fencing, nor have they acted at the behest of private respondents. The allegations of harassment, intimidation, and misuse of police power are wholly false, baseless, and invented for the purpose of the present proceedings. It is therefore contended that the Writ Petition, being an attempt to convert a civil dispute into a constitutional writ, is not maintainable in law, and this Court may be pleased to dismiss the same, as the respondent authorities have at all times acted bona fide, within jurisdiction, and solely to preserve public order. 5. In view of the submissions made by both the learned Counsel and upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the controversy between the Petitioner and Respondent No.13 is essentially a civil dispute pertaining to boundaries and enjoyment of immovable property, which cannot be converted into a police matter. 6 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent police not to summon henceforth the Petitioners to the Police Station unnecessarily and not to interfere in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No.13. 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: 12.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 13.03.2026 B/o VTS