VANTAKULA APPALA NAIDU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, except under due procedure of law. There shall be no order as to costs.…
Judgment
Cause title
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 Station House Officer, Makavarapalem Police Station not to call the petitioner to his police station by interfering with the petitioner’s land admeasuring 231.11 sq.yds. in Sy.No.193 bearing Door No.4-392 in vajragada village, Makavarampalem Mandal , Anakapalli District for forcible settlement at the instance of the unofficial Respondents pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION NO: 27336 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: No.4-392
…pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Station House Officer, Makavarapalem Police tation, Makavarapalem mandal, Anakapalli District in interfering with the petitioner's House admeasuring 231.11 sq.yds. in Sy.No.193 bearing Door in vajragada village, Makavarampalem Mandal , Anakapalli District and demolishing the house without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and consequently direct the Station House Officer, Makarapalem Police Station not to interfere with my property and not to force me to execute document in favour of the unofficial Respondents in respect of my property at the threat of foisting false criminal cases without following due procedure contemplated under law and to pass…
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the police are interfering with the civil disputes in between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and further insisting the petitioner to settle civil disputes. Learned counsel would further submit that a direction may be given to the police.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on oral instructions would submit that police are not interfering in the civil disputes between petitioner and the unofficial respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of.
Operative part
Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, the police are directed not to interfere in the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, except under due procedure of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 30.12.2025. TVN 283 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.27336 of 2024 Dated.30.12.2025 TVN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording the above said submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 30 Dec 2025. The bench was VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA.
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.