Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 945 (AP)

JAMPANA SRINIVASA RAJU v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/10262/2026 · 2026-04-19

Y Lakshmana Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010205182026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10262/2026 Between: 1. JAMPANA SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O.SATYANARAYA RAJU, AGE 52 YEARS,R/O.D.NO.80-20-17, FLAT NO.101, PRAMADA NIVAS, NO.5, JAYASRI GARDEN, A.V.A.ROAD, RAJAMUNDRY TOWN, RAJAMUNDRY MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KALLIPALLI JAGADESHWAR,, S/O.LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.19-12-151 2ND FLOOR, NEAR VINAYAKA AND SIVA TEMPLE, ARCH ROAD, BAIRAGIPATTEDA,TIRUPATHI. TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. TITUPATI. TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUCHANOOR POLICE STATION TIRUCHANOOR VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUCHANOOR POLICE STATION, TIRUCHANOOR VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517501 5. THE THASILDAR CUM MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TIRUCHANOOR VILLAGE, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517503 2 6. NALLAGATLA SHALINI, W/O.N.RAJENDRA PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.N0.19-7-87/S/8, GOPALARAJU COLONY, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 517503 7. BUNGATAVULA KRISHNAIAH, S/O.ESWARAIAH, R/O. REDDIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT 516214 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR 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 for the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No,3 to 5 in collusion with Respondent No.6 and 7, interfering with civil disputes and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners with regard to their Property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.50 Cents in Old Sy.No.295/1, New Sy.No.295/1A situated at of Tiruchanuru Village, Andhra Pradesh and trying to dispossess the Petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 not to interefere with civil disputes, including interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners with regard to subject properties in any manner, in the interest of justice…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Devalaraju Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that Respondents No.3 to 5, in collusion with Respondents No.6 and 7, are interfering in civil disputes and disturbing the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of their property. It is further submitted that the unofficial 3 respondents herein, as well as in W.P.No.5664 of 2026, have challenged the rythwari patta granted in favour of the Petitioners’ vendors, and such proceedings are pending before the CCLA. 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the Respondent Police have never interfered in civil disputes and requests that the matter be disposed of by passing appropriate orders. 5. This Court, in W.P.No.5664 of 2026 dated 06.03.2026, directed the Respondents therein not to interfere henceforth at the behest of Respondent No.6 in connection with the Petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment. 6. In the present case also, considering the facts and circumstances and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondents No.3 to 5 not to interfere henceforth in the civil dispute without express orders from the competent authority in accordance with law. 7. With the above observations, 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: 20.04.2026 PRA 4 44 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 10262 of 2026 Date: 20.04.2026 PRA