Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Gaddam Razoria Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Andhra Pradesh HC
2026
Gaddam Razoria Vs the State of ApGaddam Razoria v. the State of Ap

Disposed¶36

Gaddam Razoria v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Feb 2026WP/3524/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus against police/revenue interference in civil land dispute; Petitioner Gaddam Razoria v. State of AP and others; lands at Sy. Nos. 1115/2, 1112/14, 1110/5, Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore; permanent injunction decree in O.S.No.110 of 2017 (Civil Judge, Kovur, 20.10.2022) favouring Respondent No.6 Gaddam Sirisha; execution E.P.No.9 of 2024 pending; direction to SHO Buchireddypalem and Tahsildar not to interfere during pendency of suit; Articles 14 and 21 invoked; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 (Station House Officer, Buchireddypalem Police Station, and Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem) not to interfere further in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Why is it important?

The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 not to interfere further in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 in view of the pendency of the civil suit. ¶35

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition disposed of with a direction to Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 (Station House Officer, Buchireddypalem Police Station, and Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem) not to interfere further in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in interfering with the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondent No.6 over Ac. 1.15 Cents in Sy. Nos. 1115/2, 1112/14 and 1110/5 of Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue restraining them from such interference.

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 not to interfere further in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 in view of the pendency of the civil suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Bench, Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao) disposed of Writ Petition No. 3524 of 2026 filed by Gaddam Razoria seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the Station House Officer, Buchireddypalem Police Station (Respondent No.3) and the Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem (Respondent No.5) from interfering in her land dispute with unofficial Respondent No.6 (Gaddam Sirisha) concerning Ac. 1.15 Cents in Sy. Nos. 1115/2, 1112/14 and 1110/5 of Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District. Recording the Assistant Government Pleader's submissions that a permanent injunction decree in O.S.No.110 of 2017 (dated 20.10.2022) already stands in favour of Respondent No.6 and execution proceedings in E.P.No.9 of 2024 are pending, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 not to interfere further in the civil dispute while the suit is pending. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

A

[3521]

APHC010057912026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 3524/2026

Between:

GADDAM RAZORIA, W/O. GADDAM PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC RETIRED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.25-1667, PODALAKUR ROAD, PRAGATHI NAGAR COLONY, GAUTHAM NAGAR, NELLORE CITY, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522237.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE-524001.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BUCHIREDDYPALEM POLICE STATION, NELLORE DISTRICT-524305

JOINT COLLECTOR, COLLECTOR OFFICER, NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE-524001.

THE TAHSILDAR, BUCHIREDDYPALEM, NELLORE DISTRICT524305.

GADDAM SIRISHA, , D/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC STAFF NURSE, R/O. HARIZANAWADA, BUCHIREDDYPALEM, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT-524305.

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER:

The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

“…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 and. 5 in interfering with the Civil disputes between the Petitioner and unofficial Respondent and thereby threatening the Petitioner to enter into her lands to the extent of Ac. 1.15 Cents in Sy. No.1115/2, Sy.No.1112/14 and Sy.No.1110/5 of Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, Nellore District, is illegal, arbitrary, high-handed and a violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 and their staff not to interfere with the civil disputes in between the Petitioner and unofficial Respondent…”

Heard learned counsel for Petitioner and learned Assistant Government

Pleader.

Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that Respondent Nos.3 and 5 have been unnecessarily interfering in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and unofficial Respondent No.6.

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.6 filed a grievance on 05.01.2026 regarding a land dispute with the Petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, Kovur, had already granted a permanent injunction in O.S.No.110 of 2017 on 20.10.2022 in favour of Respondent No.6. Execution proceedings (E.P.No.9 of 2024) are pending to enforce the decree. On 19.01.2026, the Petitioner’s

3

grandson was informed by Respondent No.3 at the police station about the decree and was advised not to trouble Respondent No.6. It is further submitted that the Petitioner never appeared at the police station and Respondent No.3 has not interfered or acted high-handedly in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent Nos.3 & 5 not to interfere further in the civil dispute in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.6.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Dated: 23.02.2026 PRA

4

22

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 3524 of 2026

Date: 23.02.2026 PRA

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the action of Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in interfering with the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondent No.6 over Ac. 1.15 Cents in Sy. Nos. 1115/2, 1112/14 and 1110/5 of Vavveru Village, Buchireddypalem Mandal, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and whether a writ of mandamus should issue restraining them from such interference.¶28
The court held
The Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 not to interfere further in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent No.6 in view of the pendency of the civil suit.ratio¶35

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 14; Article 21¶28

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Respondent No.6 filed a grievance on 05.01.2026 regarding a land dispute with the Petitioner.¶32
Prior proceeding
Permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.110 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge, Kovur, on 20.10.2022 in favour of Respondent No.6.¶32
Prior proceeding
Execution proceedings E.P.No.9 of 2024 pending to enforce the decree.¶32
Prior proceeding
On 19.01.2026, the Petitioner's grandson was informed by Respondent No.3 at the police station about the decree and advised not to trouble Respondent No.6.¶34

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Gaddam Razoria¶10
Harinath Reddy Soma
respondent
The State of AP, rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department¶13
GP FOR HOME, GP FOR REVENUE, P.Ajay Babu
respondent
The Superintendent of Police, Nellore District¶14
respondent
The Station House Officer, Buchireddypalem Police Station¶15
respondent
Joint Collector, Collector Officer, Nellore District¶16
respondent
The Tahsildar, Buchireddypalem¶17
respondent
Gaddam Sirisha¶18

Coram

AI extract

Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Raoauthor¶7

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Andhra Pradesh HC
Decided on: 22 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 5 Feb 2026
Case no.: WP/3524/2026
CNR: APHC010057912026
Bench: Y. Lakshmana Rao
Disposal: DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Case type: Writ Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Y. Lakshmana Rao

Puppala Krishnamurthy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
19 Feb 2026
Y R Srinath Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
19 Feb 2026
Ummadisetti Durga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
19 Feb 2026
Malliboina Tirupataiah Vs State
22 Feb 2026
H.R. Obulesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
22 Feb 2026
Borusu Veerabhadra Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh
22 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Gaddam Razoria v. the State of Ap, WP/3524/2026 (AP), decided on 22 February 2026.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 14; Article 21

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Respondent No.6 filed a grievance on 05.01.2026 regarding a land dispute with the Petitioner.
Permanent injunction granted in O.S.No.110 of 2017 by the learned Civil Judge, Kovur, on 20.10.2022 in favour of Respondent No.6.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Dr. Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao

Parties & counsel