IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27470 of 2008 Between: Dommeti Satti Raju S/o.Venkateswar Rao R/o.China Kandala Palem Manepalli, Kothepeta, East Godavari Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, East Godavari District Kakinada 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District 3 The Tahsildar, P.Gannavaram Mandal, P.Gannavaram East Godavari District 4 The Mandal Surveyor, P.Gannavaram Mandal East Godavari District 5 Geddada Dharma RAju S/o.Narayana Murthy R/o.China Kandala Palem Kothapeta Mandal, East Godavari District 6 Geddada RAdhakrishna S/o.Dharmaraju R/o.Chinnakandala Palem,. Kothapeta Mandal East Godavari District .....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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with petitioner possession and enjoyment of the land to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in RS.No.424/1 of Manepalli village, P.Gannavaram Mandal,East Godavari District at the instance of the respondents 5 and 6 herein without any manner of right and without due process of la as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with petitioner possession and enjoyment of the said land and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.27470 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner purchased an extent of Acs.0.03 in R.S.No.424/1 of Manepalli Village of P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District under registered sale deed, dated 26.09.1994. When there was interference by respondents 5 and 6, he filed O.S.No.58 of 2005 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with peaceful possession. The suit was decreed on 28.04.2008 against respondents 5 and 6. It is now alleged that though respondents 5 and 6 lost their case in civil Court, they approached official respondents and they are trying to interfere with possession. Therefore, present writ petition is filed. Learned Assistant Government Pleader after getting instructions submits that the land is classified as ‘Gayalu’ and third respondent is not interested in the matter. Even otherwise, petitioner has already obtained decree of permanent injunction from the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapet, in O.S.No.58 of 2005, nothing prevents them from filing execution petition under Order XXI Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 17.12.2008 pln