Mahadasyam Chiranjeevi Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MAHADASYAM CHIRANJEEVI RAO, S/O. LATE. MANNARU SWAMY, AGED. 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION. RTD. ASI, D. NO. 6-56/2 PADMANABHA NAGAR, R.R.V. PURAM POST, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P - 530 029

¶11

MOJJADA RAMA RAO,, S/O. LATE. VENKAYYA, AGED. 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION. RTD. ASI, D. NO. 290, HARIKRISHNAMMA PETA (VILL), CHALLAVANIPETA POST, JALUMURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH - 532 432.

¶12

BALAKA BUTCHI BABU,, S/O. LATE. B. RANGANNA, AGED. 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION. RTD. ASI, D. NO. 1-56/63, DHARMAPURI COLONY, P.M. PALEM, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P - 530 041

¶13

GANAPATHI SARASWATHI,, W/O. LATE. G. JAYAPATHI RAO, AGED. 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION. HOUSE WIFE, D. NO. 22-115-1-25-1, THOTAVEEDI, DAYAL NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, B.C. ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 026.

¶14

GONABAKTULA VIJAYA KUMARI,, W/O. LATE. G. NAGA BUSHANA RAO, AGED. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D. NO. 13-306, INDRA NAGAR, GOPALAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530 027.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

2

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 238.

¶19

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, SURYABAGH, VISAKHAPATNAM VISAKHAPATNAM DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH- 530 020.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, WEST ZONE, POLICE COMMISSIONERATE COMPLEX, SURYABAGH, VISHAKHAPATNAM, A.P - 530 020

¶21

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PENDURTHI, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH- 531 173.

¶22

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PENDURTHI POLICE STATION, ARAKU ROAD, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM DIST., A P - 531173.

¶23

MARAVATHU MADHUSUDHANA RAO, S/O. LATE. SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DO. NO.7-15, SATHVANI PALEM, HAMLET OF NARAVA REVENUE VILLAGE, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISHAKHAPATNAM DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶24

DUNNA BHASKARA RAO, S/O. LATE SYAM SUNDAR RAO, AGED ABOUT. 48 YEARS, HOUSE NO.319, MIG-1, P.M. PALEM, MADURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P - 530 041.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.BURUGU SRILATHA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR HOME

¶30

The Court made the following:

¶31

3

¶32

ORDER :

¶33

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶34

India seeking the following relief:

¶35

“… to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 5 in considering the complaints of the petitioners in Special Spandana and PGRS dated. 06.03.2024 and 09.12.2024 and also in not considering the representations of the petitioners dated. 22.03.2025 and 20.09.2025, with regard to the property of the petitioners who purchased the subject land with their hard earnings, against the respondents 6 and 7, who intend to grab the property of the petitioners by way of illegal trespass as well as life threats is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional, null and void and opposed to the canons of natural Justice as embodied in Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 as to consider the representations of the petitioners, by providing police protection from the illegal grabbers i.e., respondents 6 and 7 and their henchmen forthwith…”

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant

¶37

Government Pleader.

¶38

Ms.B.Srilatha, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the Petitioners, being aggrieved by the continued inaction of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in considering their complaints in Special Spandana and PGRS dated 06.03.2024 and 09.12.2024, and also in not considering their representations dated 22.03.2025 and 20.09.2025, have filed the present Writ Petition.

¶39

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that Respondent No.5 has conducted a preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’) and noticed that the dispute between the Petitioners and the unofficial Respondents is civil in nature and advised both the parties to approach the competent civil court. The matter was referred to

¶40

the pre-litigation center, but no settlement was fructified.

¶41

4

¶42

In view of the above, and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to invoke appropriate civil remedies against the unofficial Respondents before the competent civil court in accordance with law.

¶43