THAMMINENI ANASUYAMMA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/36880/2025 · 2026-01-04
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27674 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 27674 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010707672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36880/2025 Between:
1. THAMMINENI ANASUYAMMA, W/O LATE PICHI REDDY, AGE.52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.3-24, KISTAMCHETTIPALLI VILLAGE, GIDDALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SP, PRAKASAM DISTRICT (ONGOLE).
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DSP, GIDDALUR DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KISTAMCHETTIPALLI POLICE STATION,
KISTAMCHETTIPALLI, GIDDALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
5. THAMMINENI 1ST PICHI REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-21, KISTAMCHETTIPALLI VILLAGE, GIDDALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
6. THAMMINENI 3RD PICHI REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.3-24, KISTAMCHETTIPALLI VILLAGE, GIDDALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
2
7. THAMMINENI 4TH PICHI REDDY, S/O. LAKSHMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. D.NO.24-602, LDP COLONY, SECUNDRABAD, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,TELANGANA.
8. SETTYVARI RANGA SAI, S/O. SETTYVARI PANDU RANGAIAH, AGE. NOT KNOWN, OCC. NOT KNOW, R/O. H.NO.5-13, KISTAMCHETTIPALLI VILLAGE, GIDDALURU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRILATHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
3
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 36880/2025
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent not acted upon my complaint dt.10.12.2025 by colluding with unofficial respondents 5 to 8 at the instance of Revenue Authorities, trying to dispossess me from the subject property despite the pendency of First Appeal (CFR No.2498/2025) before the Hon'ble VI Additional District Judge, Markapuram, even Interim Status Quo issued by this Hon'ble Court passed in WP No.34010 of 2025, dt.08.12.2025 pursuant to the subject land an extent of Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.689/A1 and Ac.0.20 cents in Sy.No.689/B1, Kistamchettipalli Village, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasam District, is illegal, arbitrary andviolative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent Station House Officer, to forthwith provide adequate and effective police protection to the petitioner for safeguarding her life, liberty and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property, restraining the unofficial respondents and revenue authorities from interfering with, dispossessing, demolishing or carrying out any construction in the subject property except in accordance with due process of law,.…”
2. Heard Ms. P. Srilatha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent- police are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land despite the
4
pendency of First Appeal. The present petition is filed seeking police protection to the petitioner for safeguarding her possession over the subject property.
4. Perused the material on record. The record would show that the petitioner herein lost the suit, which is filed for permanent injunction after a full-fledged Trial. The suit filed by the petitioner’s husband for partition was dismissed. After filing of the First Appeal, the petitioner’s husband died. The appeal suit is pending between the parties. In that view, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in this matter to pass any Order.
5. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out her remedies before the appropriate forum where the appeal suit is pending. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 05.01.2026. UPS
5
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 36880/2025
Dated.05.01.2026
UPS