Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2795 (AP)

DUDEKULA BRAHMAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/15139/2026 · 2026-06-03

A Hari Haranadha Sarma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010288702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3520] THRUSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT PETITION NO: 15139/2026 Between: 1. DUDEKULA BRAHMAIAH, S/O. DUDEKULA DASTAGIRI, AGE ABOUT 57-YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MUPPALA GOOTY VILLAGE, PEDDAVADUGURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST-522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- 515001. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, DGP OFFICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522503. 4. THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- 515001. 5. THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, PEDDAVADUGURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405. 6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PEDDAVADUGURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405. 7. KAMALAPATI PAKERAPPA, S/O. ERAPPA, AGE ABOUT- 65 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MUPPALA GOOTY, PEDDAVADUGURU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405. 8. KAMALAPATI SRINIVASULU, S/O. K. PAKERAPPA AGE ABOUT- 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MUPPALA GOOTY, PEDDAVADUGURU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405. 9. KAMALAPATI RAMANA, S/O. K. PAKERAPPA AGE ABOUT- 45 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 1, MUPPALA GOOTY, PEDDAVADUGURU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, AP-515405. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to direct the respondents not to interfere in the peace full possession and enjoyment of the petitioners schedule property by calling them to the police station and threatening them to Vacate the petitioners schedule property are else they will evict the petitioners forcefully and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents No. 3,4 and 6 to act upon the PGRS complaint vide receipt No. ATP202605293169, 29.05.2026 given by the petitioner Dt. per the procedure contemplated under theas law in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJESH KUMAR B Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following the order:- The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to direct the respondents not to interfere in the peace full possession and enjoyment of the petitioners schedule property by calling them to the police station and threatening them to Vacate the petitioners schedule property are else they will evict the petitioners forcefully and pass…” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. The writ petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus, alleging that Respondent No.6, at the instance of Respondent Nos.7 to 9, is interfering in a civil dispute relating to the subject property. 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, having derived title thereto from his father. It is contended that Respondent Nos.7 to 9 are claiming rights over the property on the strength of an unregistered and unenforceable agreement and are exerting pressure through various sections, including the police, to settle the dispute in their favour. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of written instructions, submits that the petitioner himself lodged a complaint through the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) on 29.05.2026 alleging interference by Respondent No.7 and seeking police protection. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.6 examined the matter and advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of their title and possession claims, as the dispute is purely civil in nature. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that, as per the written instructions received, Respondent No.7 also submitted a representation on 20.05.2026. It is stated that the petitioner was bound over by the Mandal Executive Magistrate, Pedavaduguru, under the relevant provisions of law on 21.05.2026 ensuring that no breach of peace or law and order situation arises in connection with the subject property dispute. Therefore, the allegation of police interference, as made by the writ petitioner, is incorrect and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, and upon perusal of the written instructions placed on record, this Court finds that both parties have been advised to seek appropriate remedies before the competent Civil Court in respect of their title dispute. The revenue and police authorities have merely taken preventive measures to maintain peace and public order and have not undertaken any adjudication of civil rights. 7. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required in the present writ petition. However, it is made clear that the police authorities shall not interfere in the civil dispute between the parties except in accordance unless there is criminal nature of disputes between them. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The written instructions furnished by the respondents shall form part of the record. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending and the Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J Dated: 04.06.2026 JLSR 19 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA W.p.No.15139 of 2026 Dated: 04.06.2026 JLSR