Disposed¶38

B Prakash Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2026WP/7670/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Writ Petition No.7670/2026; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21, 300A; police interference in civil dispute; Station House Officer, L-Town P.S., Hindupur; Sy.No.386 Kotnur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu; O.S.No.168/2025, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur; permanent injunction; defendant No.2; W.P.No.26950/2025; mutation; Tahsildar; Dial-100/112; law and order; direction not to interfere; no costs; Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.; 17.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent police not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station unnecessarily at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and not to interfere in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶38

B Prakash Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, L-Town P.S., Hindupur) acted without jurisdiction in interfering in a purely civil dispute over Sy.No.386 of Kotnur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District, at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, while O.S.No.168/2025 remains pending, warranting restraint on such police interference and protection of the Petitioner's possession.

¶32

Court's answer

Disposing of the Writ Petition, the Court directed the respondent police not to henceforth call the Petitioner to the Police Station unnecessarily at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, and not to interfere in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (No.7670/2026) under Article 226 filed by B Prakash Babu, a direct legal heir of late H.Kondaiah, complaining that Respondent No.3, the Station House Officer, L-Town P.S., Hindupur, was interfering in a civil dispute over Sy.No.386 of Kotnur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District, at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, notwithstanding that O.S.No.168/2025 (permanent injunction, Petitioner as defendant No.2) was pending before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, and that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 had themselves approached this Court in W.P.No.26950/2025, where directions were issued to the Tahsildar on mutation. The Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the police role is confined to law and order and that Respondent No.3 had neither supported Respondent Nos.4 and 5 nor interfered with the Petitioner's possession. Disposing of the petition, the Court (Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.) directed the respondent police not to call the Petitioner to the Police Station unnecessarily at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and not to interfere in the pending civil dispute; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010146652026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 7670/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

1.B PRAKASH BABU, S/O B RAMANJINEYULU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O BOYAPETA HINDUPURTOWN SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT A.P 515201

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

¶14

2.THE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR MANDAL ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 515201

¶15

3.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, L-TOWN P.S. HINDUPUR-515201

¶16

4.H S LAKSHMI PRASAD, S/O LATE H S KONDIAH AGE 55 YEARS R/O D NO 26-3-382 VIJAYANAGAR MELAPURAM, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 515201

¶17

5.THIRUMALA HARINATH, S/O LATE THIRUMALA KONDAPPA AGE 42 YEARS R/O D NO 26-3-341 MELAPURAM, HINDUPUR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT 515201

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶20

1.A.SRINIVASA RAO

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶22

¶23

1.GP FOR HOME

¶24

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER :

¶27

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

¶28

India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus questioning the action of the 3rd respondents interfering in Civil disputes at the behest of respondent Nos 4 and 5 in Sy No 386 of Kotnur Village Hindupur Mandal Anantapuramu District which is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional against principles of natural justice contra to the violation of Articles 14 19 21 300A of the Constitution of India and the O S No 168/2025 which is pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Hindupur between the writ petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 relating to the same subject matter consequently direct the respondent No 3 not to interfere in Civil matters which is the subject matter of O S No 168/2025 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Hindupur and pass…”

¶30

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶31

Government Pleader.

¶32

Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is instituted, assailing the arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional interference of the Respondent No.3 in a purely civil dispute at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 and 5 concerning Sy.No.386 of Kotnur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District. It is contended that such interference, dehors judicial authority, is violative of the principles of natural justice and contra to the guarantees enshrined under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300‑A of the Constitution. The Petitioner, being a direct legal heir of late H.Kondaiah, asserts his lawful entitlement to the estate, notwithstanding the purported wills clandestinely executed in favour of Respondent Nos.4 and 5, which were affected behind the back of the Petitioner and without affording

¶33

¶34

him opportunity of participation. The Petitioner has already moved for mutation of his lawful share, and Respondent No.2 is bound in law to issue notices, conduct survey and demarcation, and consider the objections of all legal heirs before passing any order. It is further submitted that Respondent Nos.4 and 5 themselves have earlier invoked writ jurisdiction in W.P.No.26950/2025, wherein this Court categorically directed Respondent No.2 to consider objections before proceeding with mutation, and the matter is still pending. In addition, O.S.No.168/2025 is sub judice before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, wherein the Petitioner is arrayed as defendant No.2, and the relief sought is one of permanent injunction. In spite of pendency of the said civil suit, Respondent No.3, without jurisdiction, is interfering with the Petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, thereby usurping the domain of the Civil Court. Such high‑handed action is impermissible in law and amounts to colourable exercise of power. Hence, it is urged that this Court may be pleased to direct Respondent No.3 from not interfering in civil disputes pending adjudication in O.S.No.168/2025, and further direct Respondent No.3 not to disturb the Petitioner’s lawful possession over Sy.No.386 of Kotnur Village, Hindupur Mandal, Anantapuramu District.

¶35

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the role of the jurisdictional police is confined to maintaining law and order, responding to calls under Dial‑100/112, and preventing breach of peace or affray, and not to adjudicate civil rights or

¶36

¶37

property disputes. The Respondent No.3 has scrupulously adhered to this mandate and has neither extended support to Respondent Nos.4 and 5 nor interfered with the Petitioner’s possession. Since the subject matter is already pending adjudication in O.S.No.168/2025 before the competent civil court, the police authority shall act strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court and the concerned revenue authorities, without usurping the jurisdiction of the civil forum.

¶38

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent police not to henceforth call the Petitioner to the Police Station unnecessarily at the behest of Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and not to interfere in the civil dispute pending between the Petitioner and unofficial Respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

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

¶40

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶41

Date: 17.03.2026 VTS

B Prakash Babu v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Prakash Babu 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

Kottu Naga Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Chittabattina Sesha Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bandela Raja Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pralayakaveri Govindamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Vayala Krishnaamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pralayakaveri Govindamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh