APHC010437482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22212/2025 Between:

1. S HAIK CHAND BASHA, S/O.SHAIK MABU SAB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.REDDYVARIPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASPA, T.SUNDUPALLIMANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

2. S HAIK SHAMEEM,, W/O.CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.REDDYVARIPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, KASPA, T.SUNDUPALLIMANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

3. T HE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

4. T HE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY RURAL POLICE STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

5. T HE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.SUNDUPALLI POLICE STATION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

6. S OMALRAJU ESWARAMMA, W/O.RAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O.ETIGADDARACHAPALLI,T.SUNDUPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DSITRICT.

7. S HAIK FARIDABI, W/O. SHAIK KHADAR VALI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O.T.SUNDUPALLI VILLAGE POST AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

SHAIK ALTAF Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. PHANI TEJA CHERUVU 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 a Wirt of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or Direction declaring the order dated 02 06 2024 passed by the 5th respondent as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and consequently direct the 5th respondent to grant Police Aid for effective implementation of the decrees passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Rayachoty in O S No 17 of 2012 and O S No 16 of 2013 by setting aside the order dated 02 06 2024 passed by the 5th respondent and pass ….”

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

3. Mr. Shaik Khader Mastan, the learned counsel, representing Mr. Shaik Altaf, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of there being an ex-parte permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.17 of 2012 on 31.10.2013 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, Respondent Nos.6 and

7 have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 have purposefully not joined the trial in the above-mentioned suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on several judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court, contending that the petitioners are entitled for grant of police protection, inasmuch as the police are not granting any aid for effective implementation of the decree passed by the competent Civil Court.

4. On the other hand, Mr.C.Phani Teja, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7, submits that the unofficial respondents have filed two suits against the petitioners for the relief of permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos.6 and 7 further submits that the lifespan of the ex-parte permanent injunction would be only 12 years as per Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and since the two suits are pending against the petitioners at the behest of the unofficial respondents, the petitioners are bound to contest those suits and see that the suits are brought to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.

5. Similarly, Mr. P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that there are Civil suits pending between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. Respondent Nos.3to 5 would follow the orders of the Civil Court or this Court. Undeniably, the petitioners have instituted a sui