K. Vijaya Bhaskar Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 7134 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 7134 AP
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K. Vijaya Bhaskar Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 August, 2024

APHC010229622018

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3368]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

              MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                       PRESENT
    THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 10078/2018
Between:
  1. K. VIJAYA BHASKAR NAIDU, S/O. K. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU,
     AGED 56 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,              R/O. MITTAMEEDA
     KANDRIGA, H/O. PANAKAM VILLAGE,            TIRUPATI RURAL
     MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
   2. SMT. K. YASHODAMMA, W/O. K. RAMACHANDRA NAIDU,
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,                  R/O.
     MITTAMEEDA          KANDRIGA,     H/O.   PANAKAM   VILLAGE,
     TIRUPATI. RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
                                                 ...PETITIONER(S)
                                 AND
   1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY          (HOME   DEPARTMENT),        SECRETARIAT,
     VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
   2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR
     DISTRICT.
   3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI
     RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
   4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUPATI RURAL, CHHITTOOR
     DISTRICT.
   5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUCHANUR POLICE
     STATION, TIRUPATI RURAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
   6. SRI T SURESH NAIDU, S/O. T. RANGAPPA NAIDU,          AGED
                                      2
                                                                  BVLNC,J
                                                       W.P.No.10078 of 2018



     ABOUT YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,                    R/O. MITTAMEEDA
     KANDRIGA, H/O. PANAKAM VILLAGE,                   TIRUPATI RURAL
     MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
   7. DONDAPATI DAMODARAM NAIDU, S/O. D. CHENGAMA
     NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O.
     MITAMEEDA KANDRIGA, H/O. PANAKAM VILLAGE AND
     POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
   8. DONDAPATI MADHUSUDHAN NAIDU                     MADHU, S/O. D.
     NAVAKOTI NAIDU, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/
     O. MITTAMEEDA KANDRIGA, H/O. PANAKAM VILLAGE AND
     POST, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME (AP)

2. P HEMACHANDRA The Court made the following order :-

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking the following relief:-

"...to issue Writ or order or direction more particularly in the

nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2

to 5in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated

05.02.2018 and 12.03.2018 for providing the police protection in

respect of the property of land situated in Sy.No.124/3 to an extent

of 0.09 cents Sy.No.124/4 to an extent of Ac.2.09 cents situated at

BVLNC,J

Panakam village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District from the

respondents No.6 to 8 and their henchmen who are giving trouble

and disturbing the possession of petitioners over the above land ..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. It appears that O.S.No.737 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge's Court, Tirupathi, was decreed on 28.04.2014. The contention

of the petitioner is that R.6 to R.8 who are defendants in the suit are

interfering with the possession of the petitioner inspite of the decree by

the learned Civil Court and he presented representations to the

respondent-police on 05.12.2018 and 12.03.2018 for providing police

protection. The writ petition was filed in the year 2018. At this length

of time, the petitioner ought to have approach the concerned Civil

Court for execution of the decree against the judgment debtors for

violation of the decree. But no such information is forth coming from

the record. The duty of the police is to take necessary action as per