Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/3221/2023 of R SURYA NARAYANA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF AP on 7 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM WRIT PETITION NO: 3221/2023 Between: 1. R SURYA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE. ADI REDDY AGE 54 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE H.NO
APHC010064372023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 8th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 3221/2023
Between:
1. R SURYA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O LATE. ADI REDDY AGE 54
YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE H.NO 3-74,MUTTALA(V) ATMAKUR(M)
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.-515751
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ATMAKUR POLICE STATION ,MUTTALA
VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.
4. MANDAL
REVENUE
INSPECTOR,
ATMAKUR
MANDAL
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
5. THE TAHSILDAR, ATMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT
6. MUKKARLA VENKA REDDY, S/O LATE M. ANJINAPPA MUTTALA
VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. - 515751
7. MUKKARAL RAJA GOPAL ALIAS RAJU, S/O M. VENKA REDDY
MUTTALA VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. - 515751
8. Y GOVIND REDDY, S/O Y VENKATANNA MUTTALA VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.- 515751
9. M VENKATESLU, S/O M. VENKATANNA (LATE) MUTTALA VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT PIN CORD- 515751
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action the 2nd respondent in not providing police protection to petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice apart from the violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondent 2 and 5 to take action against respondents 6 to 9 and to provide police protection to petitioner to cultivate Groundnuts crop in the petitioner land to the extent of Ac.5.25 in Sy.
No. 568-3 of Goridindla village, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapur District, in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to provide police protection to petitioner to cultivate Groundnuts crop in the petitioner land to the extent of Ac.5.25 in Sy. No. 568-3 of Goridindla village, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapur District, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CH S V SURAJ
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
3. NALLANI VAMSI KRISHNA
4. KORIBILLI SANDEEP
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION No: 3221 OF 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ch.S.V.Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner to direct respondent No.2/police to provide police aid so as to cultivate his land in an extent of Ac.5.25 in Sy.No.568-3 of Goridindla Village, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapur District.
3. As per the version of both the parties, so far, no civil suit has been filed before the competent civil court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is rightful owner of the subject land and the respondent Nos.6 to 9 have been interfering with his possession and that the petitioner has all documents showing his ownership and possession.
5. It is needless to say that without determining rights of the parties in respect of the disputed land, this court cannot grant blanket order of restraining the respondent Nos.6 to 9 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and also cannot direct the police to extend police aid. However, the police may be directed not to involve in the civil disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondents. It is further needless to say that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent civil court to get determined his rights in respect of the subject land, if he is so advised.
6. In this regard, it is to be mentioned that it is well settled that police cannot interfere in civil disputes and the Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that when the dispute is purely of civil nature, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised and further, when the dispute between two citizens is of civil nature and no crime is registered, police have no jurisdiction to interfere in the civil dispute. It is also settled that in the scheme of Constitution of India, duty to resolve civil dispute is entrusted to judiciary and police have no such power and involvement of police in a pending civil dispute or potential civil dispute between two citizens or two groups of citizens is not within the provisions of the police.
7. Further, in P. R. Muraleedharan and others v. Swami Dharmananda Teertha Padagal and others1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be converted into an execution forum and where there are cross-criminal cases, disputed facts or pending questions concerning physical possession, the police cannot be made a party to private civil rivalries and the aggrieved party must ordinarily avail the remedy before the competent civil court.
8. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to petitioner to approach the competent civil court and the respondent police shall not interfere in the civil dispute of the petitioner except in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J Dt:08.10.2026 Scs
1 2006 (4) SCC 501
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM
WRIT PETITION No: 3221 OF 2023 Date: 08.10.2026
Scs