APHC010131102026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7194/2026 Between:

1.CHALIVENDRAM SUBBARAYYUDU, S/O KONDADAYYA, MALE, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O D.N0.7B-11-4, VANKENENI VARI STREET, THURUPU VEEDHI, ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,AMARAVATHI-522237

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MARKAPUR DISTRICT, AT MARKAPUR-523316.

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAMUR MANDAL POLICE STATION,AT PAMUR, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-523108.

4.AKULA KONDAMMA, W/O ANJENEYALU, FEMALE, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-

523108.

5.AKULA MOHAN RAO, S/O ANJENEYALU, MALE. AGED 33 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE, PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-

523108.

6.AKULA MALAYADRI, S/O ANJENEYALU , MALE. AGED 32 YEARS, R/O PAMUR VILLAGE,PAMUR MANDAL, MARKAPUR DISTRICT-

523108.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KOTHANAGA SURYARAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in thenatureofWritofMandamus declaringtheinaction oftherespondents No 2and 3in not considering therepresentation dated26.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner seeking police protection as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner for safeguarding his life and property and to prevent interference by respondents 4to 6 in respectof agricultural land admeasuringAc 125 cents in Sy No 4087 of Pamur Village Pamur Mandal Markapur District and pass…”

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Sri Kotha Naga Surya Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inaction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in failing to extend police protection to the petitioner, despite a registered representation dated 26.02.2026, constitutes a manifest violation of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. It is urged that the Petitioner, being the absol‑ute owner and lawful possessor of Ac.1.25 cents in Sy.No.408 7, 1B Khata No.241 of Pamur Village, is entitled to cultivate and enjoy his pr‑operty free from unlawful interference, and the repeated threats and high handed obstruction by Respondent Nos.4 to 6 amount to criminal intimidat‑ion and breach of peace. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would further contend that the police authorities, being custodians of law and order, cannot abdicate their constitutional duty on the specious plea of a “civil dispute,” for the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.,1 has categorically held that disclosure of a cognizable offence obligates immediate police action, and in P.R. Murlidharan v. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar², it was affirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to directing police protection where life and lawful possession are imperilled. The continued passivity of Respondent Nos.2 and 3, despite a subsisting threat to life and property, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and tantamount to indirect State aided deprivation of property, thereby warranting the police authorities to forth‑with provide effective and continuous protection to the Petitioner and restrain Respondent Nos.4 to 6 from unlawful interference.

4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, opposing the writ, submits that the Petitioner has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 without exhausting efficacious statutory remedies, and that the relief prayed for is in the nature of p