GURISETTY SUJATHA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 12 Mar 2026
- Bench
- Y LAKSHMANA RAO
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No. 3 not to interfere henceforth at the behest of Respondent No. 4 in connection with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. However, if any crime…
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent(S): 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:- between the Civil disputes
…to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in the Petitioner and interfering with Respondent No.4 and thereby restraining the Petitioner in entering in to her land to an extent of Ac.0.48 Cents in Sy.No.3303, Ac.0.32 Cents in Sy.No.3306, Ac.0.25 Cents in Sy.No.3395, Ac.1.45 Cents in Sy.No.3394 total extent is Ac.2.50 Cents in Singapeta Village, Alluru Mandal, Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the Respondent No.3 not to interfere with the civil disputes in between the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 and further direct Respondent No.3 not to obstruct the Petitioner in entering into her lands to an extent of Ac.0.48 Cents in Sy.No.3303, Ac.0.32 Cents in Sy.No.3306, Ac.0.25 Cents in Sy.No.3395, Ac.1.45 Cents in Sy.No.3394 total extent is Ac.2.50 Cents in Singapeta Village, Alluru Mandal, Nellore District….
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Respondent No. 3, at the behest of Respondent No. 4, is interfering in the petitioner’s civil land dispute with Respondent No. 4 and is threatening him not to enter the fields, stating that if he enters the fields, a case will be filed against him. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6619 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026
Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, requests the Court to pass appropriate orders.
Operative part
In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent No. 3 not to interfere henceforth at the behest of Respondent No. 4 in connection with the civil dispute pending between the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. However, if any crime is registered against the petitioner, the police are at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 12.03.2026 PBS _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6619 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 287 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6619 of 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 PBS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 12 Mar 2026. The bench was Y LAKSHMANA RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.