IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 26154 of 2008 Between: Chikkala Veera Venkata Satyanarayana @ Dorababu S/o. Satyanarayana R/o. Siripuram Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, A.P. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 2 The Station House Officer, Karapa Police Station, East Godavari District. 3 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 4 The Mandal Tahsildar, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Nunna Subbalaxmi W/o. Veeranna R/o. Velangi Village, Karapa Manda, East Godavari District, A.P. 6 Nunna Veranna S/o. (adopted son) Veeraju R/o. Siripuram Village, Karapa Manda, East Godavari District, A.P. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 3 in making attempts to survey and deliver the possession of the land in Sy.No.155/2 to an extent of Ac.0.50 Cts of Siripuram Village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, without any authority as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No.26154 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. There is a dispute with regard to ownership and possession between the petitioner and the 5th respondent in respect of an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Sy.No.155/2 of Siripuram village, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District, in respect of which, in the 5th respondent’s suit in O.S.No.1222 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Kakinada an ad interim order was granted in I.A.No.1715 of 2005. The petitioner’s Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the III Additional Judge, Kakinada, in C.M.A.No.21 of 2006 was dismissed, where against, the petitioner preferred C.R.P.No.3381 of 2008 before this Court. The petitioner does not plead that the ad interim injunction granted by the Court of first instance has been eclipsed by an order under revision. Complaining inaction on the part of the petitioner in giving effect to the order of injunction suffered by him, the 5th respondent appears to have approached the 3rd respondent and obtained a survey of the land in question, by the 4th respondent. Though the writ petition does not plead the fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the trial Court has also ordered grant of police aid to the 5th respondent to effectuate the orders of interim injunction. Therefore, there is a presumption qua the order of interim injunction, that the 5th respondent is in possession. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondent Nos.1 to 4, at the instance of 5th respondent, are threatening the petitioner with dispossession. The very assertion underlying this writ petition is misconceived. The interim injunction granted in favour of the 5th respondent and the order of the trial Court granting police aid to effectuate the orders of ad interim injunction presuppose a finding by the trial Court that the 5th respondent is in possession. The correctness of such finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be canvassed in a separate and independent proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is the fundamental fallacy. This writ petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ 11th June 2009 KVR