Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/1787/2026 of JANGAM REDDY VEERA MOHAN REDDY Vs THE STATE OF AP on 4 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 1787/2026 Between: 1. JANGAM REDDY VEERA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. REDDENNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC
APHC010710292025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1787/2026
Between:
1. JANGAM REDDY VEERA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. REDDENNA, AGED
45 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR.NO.39/234-3, PAKKEERAPALLI, Y.S.R. KADAPA TOWN AND DISTRICT-516001.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI,
GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522241.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. -
522503.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT
RAYACHOTI - 516269.
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. - 516269.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY U/G POLICE
STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY RURAL POLICE
STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.
7. THE SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATECUMREVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER,
RAYACHOTY
REVENUE
DIVISION,
ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT - 516269.
8. MANDAL
EXECUTIVE
MAGISTRATECUMTAHSILDAR,
RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269
9. VEMI REDDY RUKMINAMMA, W/O. VEMI REDDY NARAYANA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.
DOOR.NO.1/113, GORLAMUDIVEDU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.
10. JANGAM REDDY VENKAT SUBBAMMA, W/O. JANGAM REDDY
REDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, R/O.
GORLAMUDIVEDU
VILLAGE
AND
PANCHAYATH,
RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.
11. JANGAM REDDY REDDAIAH, S/O. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57
YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, R/O. GORLAMUDIVEDU VILLAGE
AND PANCHAYATH, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT - 516269.
...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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 1 to 8 in not acting upon letter of 8th respondent for binding over respondents 9 to 11 and their unruly followers to secure peace and to ensure no disturbance is caused to my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the vacant site in Gorlamudivedu Village, Rayachoty Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, apart from protecting my life, dignity and properties, pursuant to ad-interim injunction order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No.329/2021 in O.S.No. 145/2021 passed by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, which is extended until further orders, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1
to 8 to forthwith grant police aid to the petitioner for peaceful possession of his property, by binding over respondents 9 to 11 and their followers under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to maintain peace and public tranquility, to register FIR for violation of the injunction order and criminal contempt, and to stop the ongoing illegal construction forthwith, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 respondents 3 to 6 to act upon letter of 8th respondent for prevention of further violation of the ad-interim injunction order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No.329/2021 in O.S.No.145/2021, to bind over respondents 9 to 11 under section 126 BNSS, and to immediately stop the ongoing illegal construction on the suit schedule property in the interests of justice, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
WRIT PETITION NO: 1787/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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:
The instant writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue necessary orders or take appropriate steps against the unofficial respondent, who has admittedly violated the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to a letter dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Revenue Department, submits that although there were specific directions by the Tahsildar to the police authorities to initiate binding over proceedings under Section 129 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231, (For brevity the BNSS) no such proceedings were initiated.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that bind- over proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS can be initiated by the Tahsildar or a Executive Officer, but not by police officials. Moreover, it is submitted that the civil dispute is presently sub judice, for which reason the police station did not take any action.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the jurisdictional Civil Judge has passed an order in I.A. No. 71 of 2021 in O.S. No. 17 of 2021 on 21.05.2021, thereby restrained the respondents from interfering with the petition schedule property.
1 The BNSS, 2023
5. It is the submission of the petitioner that the Tahsildar has taken note of the violation of the injunction by the unofficial respondent. It appears that the Tahsildar should not have passed any opinion that the interim order passed by the Civil Judge concerned has been violated by the unofficial respondent. Moreover, it is the sole domain of the Civil Judge concerned to adjudicate whether any order of injunction passed by the Civil Court has been violated. Further, there is a specific provision under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to initiate proceedings against the respondent for violation of the injunction.
6. At this juncture, it appears that the petitioner has approached the wrong forum to ventilate his grievances. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
Dated:05.05.2026. SSA