IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S.BHANUMATHI, J.
P. Jaya Kumar, S/o. P. Siva Narayana Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
R. Janardhana, S/o. G. Bakthavachala and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 27 of 2026
Decided On : 07-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner filed for protection of land possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendants contest plaintiff's title and possession. (Para 4 , 8 , 12) |
| 3. court emphasizes evidence and rights assessment. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. police aid justified to protect standing crop. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 5. court allows revision and grants police aid. (Para 20) |
Order :
This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 02.01.2026 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.438 of 2025 in I.A.No.241 of 2025 in O.S.No.117 of 2025 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Anantapur filed under section 151 C.P.C. to grant police aid by directing the Station House Officer, Vidapanakal Police Station to protect the possession of the petitioner and assist him in cultivating the suit schedule land.
2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of three items of property to total extent of Ac.21.05 cents.
3. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that a land to an extent of Ac.42.21 cents in S.No.141 of Velpumadugu village originally belongs to the ancestors of Kasibatla Gundu Rao Sarma and out of the same, he sold a portion of land to an extent of Ac.10.55 ½ cents to Sri P.Bala Kondanna under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and put the vendee in possession and that K.G.R.Sarma and his wife Annapurnamma are no more and they left behind them three sons and two daughters and thus their children were in possession and enjoyment of the rest of the property unsold and later, partitioned it under a registered partition deed dated 23.07.2019 and from them, the plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule three items of property, total of Ac.21.05 cents, under three separate registered sale deeds dated 24.06.2023, vide documents Nos.3430/2023, 3431/2023 and 3432/2023 and got pattadar pass books as well and secured loan from the State Bank of India, Uravakonda in respect of the said land. Alleging interference by the defendants, the suit was filed.
Plaint schedule
Item No.1:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu Village polam and within the same panchayat area limits:
| Babu | S.No. | Ac. |
| Govt.Dry | 141 | 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.02 or H.S.2.843 |
Bounded by :
East: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Venkatesha Sarma (Item No.3)
West: Land of M.Chandra Mouli and others
North: Land of K.Rajanna
South: Land of R.Narasimhappa
Item No.2:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu Village polam and within the same panchayat area limits:
| Babu | S.No. | Ac. |
| Govt. Dry | 141 | 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.01 or H.S.2.839 |
Bounded by
East : Land of Konanki Venkata Ramudu and others
West: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Venkatesha Sarma (Item No.3)
North : Land of K.Rajanna
South : Land of R.Narasimhappa
Item No.3:
Property situated in the R.D. of Anantapur and S.R.D. of Uravakonda within Velpumadugu village polam and within the same panchayat area limits
| Babu | S.No. | Ac. |
| Govt.Dry | 141 | 42.21 eepura No.palki Ac.7.02 or H.S.2.843 |
Bounded by
East: In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Sai Prasad (Item No.2)
West:In the same S.No.palki land purchased from K.Bhanu Prakash Rao (Item No.1)
North: Land of K.Rajanna
South: Land of R.Narasimhappa.
4. The defendant No.3 filed a written statement on 12.11.2025, mainly contending that originally a land of Ac.41.21cents of Velpumadugu village belongs to the ancestors of K.G.R.Sarma and he became owner only to an extent of Ac.21.11 cents and other half of the said property was owned by one Sankaraiah @ Chandrasekhara Rao and that K.G.R.Sarma sold his property in equal halves i.e., 10.55 ½ cents each to Konanki Venkata Ramanna under registered sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and to Pappuru Balakondanna under sale deed dated 29.04.1954 and thereby K.G.R.Sarma did not retain any
The court emphasized the need for timely intervention to protect possession of agricultural land, balancing the potential harms and rights of all parties in police aid requests.
The court affirmed that police aid is essential for enforcing civil injunction orders, emphasizing the judiciary's duty to uphold its own rulings.
Police aid in civil matters requires substantial evidence of threat or violation, not mere claims. Courts exercise this power with caution and discretion, emphasizing the need for a high standard of ....
Courts may direct police assistance under inherent powers to enforce interim status quo orders, upholding their majesty and protecting vulnerable parties like senior citizens from interference and di....
The court affirmed that police assistance for enforcing a decree requires proof of willful disobedience, and acknowledged the shared rights of co-sharers impacting enforcement viability.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.