APHC010205802026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11269/2026 Between: MS. BARCLAY LAND AND INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, SMT. IRRINKI SRIVALLI DEVI, D/O LATE ROKKAM RAMANADHAM, AGE, 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 49-5-4, LALITHA NAGAR, NEAR SANGAM OFFICE BUS STOP, AKKAYAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-16. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.522239 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DGP, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE HEADQUARTERS MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DT,AP.522503 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIZIANAGARAM ROAD, VIZIANAGARAM CANTT COLONY, VIZIANAGARAM DIFETRICT.535003 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PUSAPATIREGA POLICE STATION, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 5. SRI VARADHI THAVITAYYA, S/O PEDA LAXMAYYA, AGE44 YEARS, R/O THAMAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11269 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026 6. SRI GANGALA LINGAYYA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O THAMAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 7. SRI VARADHA LAKSHMANA, S/O KOMMADU, AGE 54 YEARS, R/O THAMAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 8. SRI GANAGALA APPALARAJU, S/O APPANNA, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O THAMAMAYYAPALEM VILLAGE, PUSAPATIREGA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT.535204 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: RAVI KIRAN KUMAR KOLUSU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 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 a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not providing adequate police protection to the petitioners for protection of their life and liberty and for safeguarding their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property in spite of the judgment and decree dated 17. 06. 2022 in O. S. No. 77 of 2017 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide necessary and effective police protection to the petitioners and their men from interference by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and their followers…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11269 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026 3. Mr. Ravi Kiran Kumar Kolusu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a judgment and decree were passed in favour of the petitioner against the unofficial respondents, granting permanent injunction restraining the unofficial respondents from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioner. Despite the said judgment and decree, the unofficial respondents have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioner. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are required to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for enjoyment of the property in terms of the judgment and decree. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that unless appropriate orders are passed by the competent Civil Court or this Court, the police are not in a position to implement the judgment and decree. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the record reveals that no appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.77 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. 5. A learned Single Judge of this Court, in Vanaparthi Subramanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 at paragraph No.11, observed that where a decree of permanent injunction has been granted by a competent Civil Court, the 1 W.P.No.20555 of 2022 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11269 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026 plaintiff therein is entitled to seek police aid either from the Civil Court which passed the decree or from this Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This view was taken by placing reliance on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rai Naramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh2. 6. In this connection, it is also appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar 3, wherein it was held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to adjudicate complex and disputed questions of fact. It was further held that a writ of police protection is permissible only to effectuate rights already crystallized by a decree or by a clear and unambiguous interlocutory order of a competent Civil Court. 7. Having regard to the entire 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 No.4 to provide necessary police protection to the petitioner for implementation of the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2022 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2017 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile)-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, and to take necessary steps in accordance with law. 2 2021 (1) ALT 426 3 (2006) 4 SCC 201 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11269 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026 8. With the above observations and directions, 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: 04.05.2026 RSI 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11269 of 2026 Dated 04.05.2026 243 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11269 of 2026 Date: 04.05.2026 RSI