Bolleddula Venkata Ramana vs The Station House Officer Advocate - GP FOR HOME — WP/15288/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 11th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010290402026

Filing Number

WP/23202/2026

Filing Date

09-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/15288/2026

Registration Date

09-Jun-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

HOME DEPARTMENT (MISC.MATTERS) ( 22 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

11-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Bolleddula Venkata Ramana

    Adv. P NAGENDRA REDDY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Station House Officer Advocate - GP FOR HOME

  2. 2.The Superintendent of Police

  3. 3.The State of Andhra Pradesh

  4. 4.Y.Ranga Swamy

  5. 5.Y.Pakkirappa

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    A. Hari Haranadha SarmaView PDF

    The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Bolleddula Venkata Ramana's writ petition challenging police interference in a civil land dispute over 0-15 acres in Thondapadu Village. The court accepted the government's submission that police merely intervened to pacify disturbances and advised both parties to pursue civil remedies through court, and that the disputed land remains unallotted government property. The petition was closed with no further orders required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Jun-2026

    Admission (Home)

    A. Hari Haranadha Sarma

  4. 09-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/15288/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed Bolleddula Venkata Ramana's writ petition challenging police interference in a civil land dispute over 0-15 acres in Thondapadu Village. The court accepted the government's submission that police merely intervened to pacify disturbances and advised both parties to pursue civil remedies through court, and that the disputed land remains unallotted government property. The petition was closed with no further orders required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case