APHC010140922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7787/2026 Between: 1. JASTI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O BHUCHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MUPPALLA VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2. JASTI NAGA JYOTHI,, W/O JASTI SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O MUPPALLA VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522237. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALNADU DISTRICT AT NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT, 522601. 3. THE IPUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IPUR, PALNADU DISTRICT 522658. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IPUR POLICE STATION, IPUR, PALNADU DISTRICT 522658. 5. GURRAM NAGARATNAM NAGARATNAMMA, W/O RAGHAVULU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O MUPPALLA VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT 522658. 6. GURRAM BUCHA RAO, S/O RAGHAVULU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O MUPPALLA VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU 2 DISTRICT 522658. 7. GURRAM HARSHA, W/O MADHU, D/O BUCHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O MUPPALLA VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT 522658. 8. GOPU VEERANJANEYULU, S/O CHINNA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O GOPUWARIPALEM VILLAGE, IPUR MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT 522658. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SASANKA BHUVANAGIRI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the respondent Nos.3,4 and their staff in A)calling the petitioners to the 3rd respondent police station, confining the petitioners to police station at the behest of the 5th to 8th respondents in connection with the civil dispute over the boundary wall, B) directing the petitioners to remove the southern side boundary wall of 1st petitioners house with D.No. 2-74, Sy.No. 409/A2 of Muppalla village, Ipur mandal, Palnadu district, C) Aiding and abetting its demolition on 12-03-2026 by supporting the 5th to 8th respondents in their illegal actions, and D) Threatening to foist false criminal cases against the petitioners if they again reconstruct the boundary wall as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently Direct the respondent Nos.3,4 and their staff not to interfere with the life and liberty of the petitioners by calling them to the 3rd respondent P.S., interfering with their right to reconstruct the boundary wall of their house, while directing the 2nd respondent to take departmental action against the erring officials…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, illegally confined the Petitioners at the 3 Police Station and coerced them in a civil boundary dispute. He further submits that they aided Respondent Nos.5 to 8 in demolishing the Petitioners’ boundary wall and threatened to foist false criminal cases against the Petitioners. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.5 lodged a report before Respondent No.4 Police Station on 11.03.2026. Based on the contents of the report, the Respondent Police called the Petitioners for preliminary enquiry. After enquiry, it was revealed that there exists a compound wall dispute between the Petitioners and certain third parties. As the matter is purely civil in nature, the Respondent Police did not interfere with the civil issues and advised both parties to settle the matter amicably. He further submits that their staff never interfered with the life and liberty of the Petitioners. 5. It is further submitted that, to curb and curtail the alleged unlawful activities of the Petitioners in the vicinity of Vinukonda Police Station, Palnadu District, the Station House Officer, Vinukonda Police Station, with prior permission from the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer, Narasaraopet Sub‑Division, opened History Sheet No.64 against the Petitioners. On the point of jurisdiction, the sheet was transferred to Ipur Police Station, where it is periodically revised and continues to remain in force. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Police not to interfere henceforth in the 4 civil dispute between the Petitioners and the unofficial Respondents without following due process of law. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 23.03.2026 PRA 5 101 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7787 of 2026 Date: 23.03.2026 PRA