1 APHC010343662024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17626/2024 Between: Bangi Gopal Naik, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of A P and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N PREMRAJ 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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 7 in not providing Police Protection to the petitioner and not removing the fencing laid by the 8th respondent in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land in Sy.No.347 of Venkatampalli Peddatanda Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District as per Easement Act for utilizing the unmarked Rastha by the petitioner and other Ryths to an extent of Ac.50.00 cents to do their agricultural operations is illegal arbitrary and contrary to Easement Act and in violation of Art 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently 2 direct the respondent Nos.1 to 7 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner to remove the fencing laid by the 8th respondent in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents of land in Sy.No.347 of Venkatampalli Peddatanda Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District wherein the Rastha is utilized by the petitioner and other adjacent Ryths for over a period of 40 years in unmarked Rastha for their agricultural operations in the interest of justice…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent police are not providing protection to the petitioner and are not removing the fencing allegedly laid by respondent No.8 to an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.347 of Venkatampalli Peddatanda Village, Vajrakarur Mandal, Anantapur District. It is further submitted that there is no civil suit pending either by the petitioner or by respondent No.8 or by any third party in respect of the said property. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the grievance of the petitioner was examined by the respondent police, and it was observed that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.8 is civil in nature. Therefore, the police refrained from interfering in the matter. 5. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent police are not providing protection to enable him to remove the fencing laid by respondent No.8. If that be so, the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious civil remedy by way of filing a suit for mandatory injunction. In such suit, it is always open to the petitioner to seek an interim temporary mandatory 3 injunction, which may be granted in appropriate and emergent circumstances, subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate civil remedies by filing a suit seeking mandatory injunction. 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: 11.02.2026 KMS 4 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.17626 of 2024 Date: 11.02.2026 KMS 116