IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1179 of 2009 Between: Bejjanki Vadla Bheemaiah S/o. Bal Raj R/o. H.No. 2-10-43, Badaigally, Kamareddy, Dist. Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Station House Officer P.S. Kamareddy Nizamabad Dist. 2 The State of A.P. Rep. by Superintendent of Police Nizamabad Dist. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.778/U admeasuring Ac.2.05 guntas situated at R.T.C. Bus Depot at Kamareddy town of Nizamabad District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by Bejjanki Vadla Bhemmaiah assailing the action of the respondents in interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.778/U admeasuring Ac.2.05 guntas situated at R.T.C. Bus Depot at Kamareddy town of Nizamabad District. The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.778/U admeasuring Ac.2.05 guntas situated at R.T.C. Bus Depot at Kamareddy town of Nizamabad District. He filed a suit being O.S.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy and obtained a decree on 03.03.2008. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession in respect of the above said land despite his having a decree granted by the Civil Court. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader for Home received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader for Home submits that the respondents are not going to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on mere assumptions and presumptions. In view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home, I am of the opinion that the apprehension of the petitioner is not based on sound reasons. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2009 va