Disposed¶30

G. Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026WP/12892/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; WP No. 12892 of 2025; Justice Subhendu Samanta; decided 05.05.2026. Keywords: writ of mandamus; police harassment; SHO Kurnool Taluqa Rural P.S.; summons to police station; pressure to register property; Appeal Suit No. 536 of 2024; civil dispute; closure of PGRS.No.KUR202504212223; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21; Section 151 CPC; IA No. 1 of 2025; disposal taking note of written instructions; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of on noting the police written instructions that the matter is a civil dispute and complaint PGRS.No.KUR202504212223 was closed; no order as to costs. ¶30

G. Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged actions of Respondent No. 4 (Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluqa Rural P.S.) in harassing the petitioner, summoning him to the police station and pressuring him to register his properties in favour of third parties despite pendency of Appeal Suit No. 536 of 2024, were illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and whether a writ of mandamus restraining such interference should issue.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Taking note of the written instructions of the Respondent-Authority, the Court disposed of the writ petition and made no order as to costs.

¶30

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the disposal, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) by a 79-year-old agriculturist seeking a writ of mandamus against the Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluqa Rural P.S., alleging continuous harassment and oral summons to the police station to pressure him into registering his properties in favour of third parties despite pendency of Appeal Suit No. 536 of 2024 before the High Court, said to violate Articles 14, 19 and 21. The learned Assistant Government Pleader (Home) placed written instructions on record stating that, after thorough enquiry and preliminary investigation, the police found a civil dispute between the parties and closed complaint PGRS.No.KUR202504212223. Taking note of these written instructions, the Single Judge (Subhendu Samanta J.) disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs, and closed miscellaneous applications, including IA No. 1 of 2025 filed under Section 151 CPC, as a sequel. The Court recorded no finding on the alleged harassment; the grievance was effectively answered by the police closure of the complaint.

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010257932025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 12892/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. VENKATESWARLU,, S/O LATE AYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURIST, R/O. H.NO. 1-93, NIDJUR VILLAGE, KURNOOL MANDAL AND DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR HOME SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT.

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KURNOOL TALUQA RURAL P.S., KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of Respondents particularly the personnel of the Respondent No. 4, wherein they have been continuously harassing us and calling us to the police station and insisting and threatening the Petitioners to register our properties in the name of third

¶18

parties, despite pendency of Appeal Suit No. 536 of 2024 before this Hon'ble High Court as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional apart from being violative of articles 14. 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official Respondents to not interfere in our civil disputes and to not insist us to register our properties in the name of third parties and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 Respondent No. 4 not to harass the Petitioners herein by orally summoning them to the police station in the pretext of enquiry, without any basis; and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.SAI SARAN CHODISETTY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR HOME

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION No. 12892 of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This instant writ petition is preferred seeking writ of mandamus upon respondent No.4, not to harass the petitioner by calling him to the police station.

¶29

Written instructions placed on record by the learned Assistant Government Pleader Home, contending inter alia that there are specific complaints by the unofficial respondent. After thorough enquiry and preliminary investigation, the police authority is of opinion that there is a civil dispute between the parties and they have closed the PGRS.No.KUR202504212223.

¶30

Taking note of the written instructions of the Respondent-Authority, the instant writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

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

¶32

____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶33

Dated: 05.05.2026 CVD

G. Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Noormohammad Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Raghunath Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yanamaddi Nagamalleswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Suseela, Vs The State of A.P.

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gollapalli Ananda Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh