Disposed¶35

Bokka Venkata Ramadevi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Nov 2025WP/1051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ, land possession dispute, Sy.No. 149/4, Ac. 1.36 cents, Pottilanka/Sanipilanka village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District; O.S. No. 79 of 2016 before Junior Civil Judge Court; status quo order in I.A No.571/2016; Article 226 Constitution of India; Articles 14, 16, 21, 300A; Bokka Venkata Ramadevi and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others; W.P. No. 1051 of 2022; disposed on 13.11.2025; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed; single judge Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs, and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ordered to stand closed as a sequel. ¶35

Bokka Venkata Ramadevi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010011812022

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1051/2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

BOKKA VENKATA RAMADEVI, W/O VISHNU BHRAMAYYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O SANKARAYAGUDEM H/O KRAPA, AINAVILLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

BOKKA VISHNU VEERA BHRAMAYYA, S/O KRISHNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O SANKARAYAGUDEM H/O KRAPA, AINAVILLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AMALAPURAM DIVISION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AINAVILLI POLICE STAION, AINAVILLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶19

POTHULA SRINIVASA RAO, SIO KUTUMBA RAO, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O KONDAKUDHURU VILLAGE, AINAVILLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶20

POTHULA LAKSHMI, W/O POTHULA SRINIVASA RAO, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, R/O SANKARAYAGUDEM H/O KRAPA, AINAVILLI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶21

INDUGULA GIRIJA KUMARI, W/O CHANDRA SHEKAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 16-150/2/10, TTR NAGAR, MUMMIDIVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶24

1.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA

¶25

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR HOME

¶28

2.YASASWI LAW ASSOCIATES LLP

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

¶32

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein threatening the petitioners to vacate the schedule properties of the petitioners in Sy.No. 149/4 an extent of Ac. 1.36 cents situated at Pottilanka H/o Sanipilanka village, Ainavilli Mandal, East Godavari District influenced by the 6th and 7th respondents even though the 6th respondent is the witness in the sale deed and status quo orders passed by the Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge Court in I.A No.571/2016 in O.S. No. 79/2016 without providing Police Protection as illegal arbitrary and violative of the article 14,16,21 and 300A of the constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to provide police protection to the petitioners schedule property an extent of Ac. 1.36 cents in Sy.No. 149/4 from the threatening of the unofficial respondents No. 7 and 8.”

¶33

2. Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the suit in O.S.No.79 of 2016 before the trial Court is decreed and hence, the petition may be disposed of, since no further orders are required in this matter.

¶34

3. Sri V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶35

4. Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶37

Date:13.11.2025 Dinesh

¶38

________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶39

¶40