APHC010057992026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3348/2026 Between: 1. KODURU BHASKAR, S/O., SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 11/192-4, ARUNDATHI WADA, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT. 2. KODURU RAJENDRA,, S/O., KODURU SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 5/124-A, DHARMAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR, KODUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. KODURU VENKATA RAMANA,, S/O., SUBBA RAYUDU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 11-192-1, ARUNDATHI WADA, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT. 4. KODURU PEDDA VENKATAIAH,, S/O., K. SUBBA RAYUDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O., D.NO. 11-192-3, ARUNDATHI WADA, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT. 5. KODURU MADHU, S/O., KODURU PEDDA VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O., D.NO.11/192-3, ARUNDATHI WADA, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT. 6. KODURU PREM BABU,, S/O., VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O., 11/192-1, ARUNDATHI WADA, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-522238 2 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATHI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAILWAY KODURU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CUM THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAILWAY KODUR POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 6. THE TAHSILDAR, RAILWAY KODUR, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 7. SMT MEKAPATI TULASAMMA, D/O., VENKATA SUBAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. CORRESPONDENT OF SREE TULASI EDUCATION ACADEMY, HOUSE NO. 10/423-20, LAKSHMI NAGAR, RAILWAY KODURU, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT-517501 8. SODISETTY BASKHAR, S/O., RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O., H/O., 4-141, KOTTA BAZAR STREET, KODUMURU VILLAGE AND POST, RAILWAY KODUR MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.-517501 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L 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 an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 6 in not following the due procedure contemplated under sec 164 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sec 145 of CRPC), as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and abuse of power and consequently direct the 6th respondent to initiate proceedings under sec 164 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sec 145 of CRPC) in respect of land measuring an extent of Ac. 1.75 cents in Sy.no. 13/1A of Railway Koduru Village and Mandal, Tirupati District…” 3 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri G.L. Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Respondent Nos.2 to 6 have not followed the due process of law contemplated under Section 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), and consequently seeks a direction to Respondent No.6 to initiate proceedings under Section 164 of ‘the BNSS’ against the unofficial Respondents. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.6, on 25.12.2025, made a requisition to Respondent No. 5 requesting police protection for conducting a survey in Railway Koduru Village fields on 26.12.2025. Pursuant to the said requisition, Respondent No.5 deputed Police Personnel along with Revenue Officials to ensure the survey was properly conducted. During the survey, the Petitioner along with his henchmen and Respondent No.7 along with her henchmen engaged in a quarrel and physically attacked each other. In that connection, a case was registered against both groups vide Cr.No.424 of 2025, which is presently under investigation. 5. It is further submitted that, even as per the case of Respondent No.5, there was a law and order problem concerning the disputed property, which is the reason why cases were registered against both the Petitioner and Respondent No. 7. Section 164 of ‘the BNSS’ lays down the procedure to be 4 followed in cases where disputes concerning land or water are likely to cause a breach of peace. 6. Section 164 of the Cr.P.C says as under: Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from a report of a police officer or upon other information that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists concerning any land or water or the boundaries thereof, within his local jurisdiction, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by an advocate on a specified date and time, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. 7. In the present case, the Inspector of Police, having observed that two cases were registered against the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, addressed a report to the learned Executive Magistrate requesting him to invoke the jurisdiction contemplated under Section 164 of ‘the BNSS.’ Nevertheless, the grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No.6 has not invoked Section 164 of ‘the BNSS.’ In this regard, it is noted that no complaint or information was submitted by the Petitioners to Respondent No.6 for the purpose of invoking his jurisdiction under Section 164 of ‘the BNSS.’ 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the two cases registered against the group of Petitioners and the group of Respondent Nos.7 and 8, the Inspector of Police is directed to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 164 of ‘the BNSS’ by submitting a 5 report to the learned Executive Magistrate/Respondent No.6 for the purpose of maintaining law and order. Admittedly, there are no civil disputes pending between the Petitioners and Respondent Nos.7 and 8. In other words, they have not filed any civil suits seeking injunctions against each other. 9. 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: 06.04.2026 PRA 6 173 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 3348 of 2026 Date: 06.04.2026 PRA