Disposed¶49

Jangam Reddy Veera Mohan Reddy v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC4 May 2026WP/1787/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 1787/2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Subhendu Samanta J., decided 05.05.2026 (Dated:05.05.2026). Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14 and 21; enforcement of Civil Court injunction; police aid; binding over; Section 126 BNSS; Section 129 BNSS; Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC; Section 151 CPC interim application (IA No. 1 of 2026); wrong forum; remedy lies with Civil Court; Rayachoty, Annamayya District. Outcome: petition disposed of, petitioner redirected to Civil Court; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None on merits; petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed. ¶49

Jangam Reddy Veera Mohan Reddy Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None on merits; petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stood closed.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 to 8 should be directed to act upon the 8th respondent's letter, bind over respondents 9 to 11 under Section 126 BNSS, grant police aid for enforcement of the Civil Court's injunction, register FIR for its violation and stop the ongoing construction. +2 more

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Adjudication of whether an injunction order passed by the Civil Court has been violated is the sole domain of the Civil Judge concerned; the Tahsildar should not have passed any opinion that the interim order was violated by the unofficial respondent; Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure is the specific provision to initiate proceedings against a respondent for violation of the injunction.

¶47

Key takeaways

The petitioner has approached the wrong forum to ventilate his grievances; the writ petition was accordingly disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 1787/2026 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Subhendu Samanta J., 05.05.2026) sought a mandamus under Article 226 directing respondents 1 to 8 (State, police and revenue authorities) to act upon the Mandal Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar's letter, bind over respondents 9 to 11 under Section 126 BNSS, grant police aid to enforce an ad-interim injunction granted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, register FIR for its violation and stop ongoing construction. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that binding-over proceedings under Section 129 BNSS can be initiated by the Tahsildar or an Executive Officer, not by police, and that the civil dispute remained sub judice. The Court held that it is the sole domain of the Civil Judge to adjudicate violation of a Civil Court injunction, the Tahsildar ought not to have opined on such violation, and Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is the specific provision for proceedings against a respondent for injunction violation; the petitioner had approached the wrong forum. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

¶1

[3560]

¶2

APHC010710292025

¶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: 1787/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

JANGAM REDDY VEERA MOHAN REDDY, S/O. REDDENNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR.NO.39/234-3, PAKKEERAPALLI, Y.S.R. KADAPA TOWN AND DISTRICT-516001.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522241.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522503.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI - 516269.

¶15

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. - 516269.

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY U/G POLICE STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAYACHOTY RURAL POLICE STATION, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.

¶18

THE SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATECUMREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTY REVENUE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA

¶19

¶20

DISTRICT - 516269.

¶21

MANDAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATECUMTAHSILDAR, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269

¶22

VEMI REDDY RUKMINAMMA, W/O. VEMI REDDY NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. DOOR.NO.1/113, GORLAMUDIVEDU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.

¶23

JANGAM REDDY VENKAT SUBBAMMA, W/O. JANGAM REDDY REDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, R/O. GORLAMUDIVEDU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.

¶24

JANGAM REDDY REDDAIAH, S/O. NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HINDU, AGRICULTURE, R/O. GORLAMUDIVEDU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYATH, RAYACHOTY MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT - 516269.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

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 action of respondents 1 to 8 in not acting upon letter of 8th respondent for binding over respondents 9 to 11 and their unruly followers to secure peace and to ensure no disturbance is caused to my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the vacant site in Gorlamudivedu Village, Rayachoty Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, apart from protecting my life, dignity and properties, pursuant to ad-interim injunction order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No.329/2021 in O.S.No. 145/2021 passed by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Rayachoty, which is extended until further orders, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 8 to forthwith grant police aid to the petitioner for peaceful possession of his property, by binding over respondents 9 to 11 and their followers under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to maintain peace and public tranquility, to register FIR for violation of the injunction order and criminal contempt, and to stop the ongoing illegal construction forthwith, and pass

¶27

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶29

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 respondents 3 to 6 to act upon letter of 8th respondent for prevention of further violation of the ad-interim injunction order dated 21.11.2023 in I.A.No.329/2021 in O.S.No.145/2021, to bind over respondents 9 to 11 under section 126 BNSS, and to immediately stop the ongoing illegal construction on the suit schedule property in the interests of justice, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

1.PASALAPUDI SATYA HARITHA

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

1.GP FOR HOME

¶34

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT PETITION NO: 1787/2026

¶38

ORDER :

¶39

The instant writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to issue necessary orders or take appropriate steps against the unofficial respondent, who has admittedly violated the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to a letter dated 21.11.2025 issued by the Revenue Department, submits that although there were specific directions by the Tahsildar to the police authorities to initiate binding over proceedings under Section 129 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023¹ , (For brevity the BNSS) no such proceedings were initiated.

¶41

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that bind-

¶42

over proceedings under Section 129 of the BNSS can be initiated by the Tahsildar or a Executive Officer, but not by police officials. Moreover, it is submitted that the civil dispute is presently sub judice, for which reason the police station did not take any action.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the jurisdictional Civil Judge has passed an order in I.A. No. 71 of 2021 in O.S. No. 17 of 2021 on 21.05.2021, thereby restrained the respondents from interfering with the petition schedule property.

¶44

1 The BNSS, 2023

¶45

¶46

It is the submission of the petitioner that the Tahsildar has taken note of

¶47

the violation of the injunction by the unofficial respondent. It appears that the Tahsildar should not have passed any opinion that the interim order passed by the Civil Judge concerned has been violated by the unofficial respondent. Moreover, it is the sole domain of the Civil Judge concerned to adjudicate whether any order of injunction passed by the Civil Court has been violated. Further, there is a specific provision under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure to initiate proceedings against the respondent for violation of the injunction.

¶48

At this juncture, it appears that the petitioner has approached the wrong forum to ventilate his grievances. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate and efficacious remedy.

¶49

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs.

¶50

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA

¶52

Dated:05.05.2026. SSA

Jangam Reddy Veera Mohan Reddy v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangam Reddy Veera Mohan Reddy v. the State of Ap

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

Chintala Rajasekhar, Guntur Dt. Vs State of a.P.,Rep. by P.P., Hyd

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

Syed Mohammed Ghouse Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Narasinga Rao, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp., and Another