Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Chalivendram Subbarayyudu vs The State Of Ap on 24 March, 2026
APHC010131102026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [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):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.KOTHA NAGA SURYA RAO
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
the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents No
2 and 3 in not considering the representation dated 26.02.2026 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 4 to 6 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac 1 25 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 absolute 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 property free from unlawful interference, and the
repeated threats and high‑handed obstruction by Respondent Nos.4 to 6
amount to criminal intimidation and breach of peace. Learned Counsel for the
3
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 forthwith 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 private
protection against alleged interference by relatives, which squarely partakes of
a civil dispute over possession and enjoyment of agricultural land. It is
submitted that the police authorities cannot be compelled to adjudicate civil
rights or act as arbiters of title, and their role is confined to maintenance of law
and order. The representation dated 26.02.2026, though acknowledged, does
1
(2014) 2 SCC 1
2
(2006) 4 SCC 501
4
not disclose any cognizable offence warranting immediate police intervention,
and the Petitioner has already divested ownership by executing a registered
settlement deed in favour of his daughter, thereby raising questions of locus
standi. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the
Writ Petition is not maintainable to enforce private rights against private
respondents, and that the Petitioner ought to seek appropriate remedies
before the competent Civil Court. It is therefore submitted that the Writ Petition
is misconceived, bereft of merit, and liable to be dismissed in limine, as no
constitutional or statutory violation is made out against the official respondents.
5. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by both the
learned Counsel and the material placed before this Court, this Court is
mindful that civil disputes over title and possession must be adjudicated
before competent forums, the duty of the police to maintain law and order and
prevent unlawful interference cannot be abdicated. Accordingly, the Writ
Petition is disposed of, directing that the representation dated 26.02.2026
submitted by the Petitioner shall be considered by the Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law within a
period of two weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 24.03.2026
VTS