APHC010024762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 2180/2026 Between:

1. S HAIK GHOUSE BASHA, S/O. LATE SHAIK ABDUL RAZACK, AGED

56 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.10/11, KUMAR KUNTA STREET, KADAPA CITY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001. 3.

3. T HE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001 4.

4. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001 5

5. S RI THULASI RAM THANGA, S/O. NOT KNOW TO THE PETITIONER, CONSTABLE, KADAPA II TOWN POLICE STATION, NEAR AMEEN PEER DARGA, BALLARY ROAD, KADAPA , YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001, MOBILE90527 48924

6. S RI DEVAKI ANANDA RAO, S/O. LATE D. A NARAYANA GUPTHA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 13/55, BKM STREET, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516001.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MUJTAHID HUSSAIN 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 Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the official respondents, more particularly the Respondent Nos.3 to5, in unlawfully interfering with the civil dispute relating to the petitioners land situated in Sy.No.46/1 admeasuring Ac.0.03 cents, Kumma Kunta Street near Ameen Peer Road, Kadapa City, YSR District, by calling the petitioner to the Police Station, issuing threats and pressurizing the petitioner to vacate the subject property, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and not to harass the petitioner in any manner…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Sri Mujtahid Hussain, learned counsel for Petitioner, submits that at the behest of unofficial respondents, particularly Respondent No.6, Respondent No.4 has been unnecessarily calling the Petitioner and interfering in the civil dispute pending between them in O.S.No.376 of 2025 on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa, wherein the petitioner sought permanent injunction restraining the unofficial respondents and others from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

4. Per contra, Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.6 submitted a representation to Respondent No.4. Based on that, Respondent No.4 conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), and came to know that a civil dispute is pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. It is further submitted that an ex-parte decree was granted in favour of Respondent No.6 on 23.10.2025. Subsequently, Respondent No.6 approached Respondent Nos.3 and 4 with the said decree and requested them to take necessary action against the petitioner. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 advised the petitioner either to challenge the ex-parte decree or to ensure that no law and order problem arises with regard to the disputed land. Except for the above, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 did not force or threaten the petitioner to vacate the land and hand it over to Responden