IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELVTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 22040 of 2014 BETWEEN Patara Bucchiyya AND ... PETITIONER The Station House Officer, Gangavaram Police Station, Gangavaram, East Godavari District and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The present writ petition is filed alleging that petitioner is in possession of Ac.1-20 cents in Survey No.127 of Nellipudi Village, Gangavaram (Agency) Mandal, East Godavari District. It is stated that the said land was taken by the petitioner on lease from one Namala Narayana Swamy.
3. Alleging that the revenue authorities are interfering with his possession, he had approached this court earlier in W.P.No.12043 of 2014. In that writ petition, the instructions of the learned government pleader representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, was recorded that they are not interfering with the enjoyment of the petitioner therein over the aforesaid land and that the writ petition was disposed of on 30.06.2014 as it was based merely on apprehension. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed alleging that respondent No.1 is interfering with the possession of the petitioner, which amounts to interference of the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3.
4. Learned government pleader has received instructions in the matter from respondent No.1 denying that there is any interference at any time by the respondents. It is also stated that if any complaint is received which requires cognizance from respondent Nos.2 and 3, appropriate steps will be taken by the police. However, the present allegation of the petitioner is clearly baseless.
5. From the two writ petitions of the petitioner, as noticed above, it is evident that he is filing the writ petitions making allegations of interference against revenue and the police authorities and after noticing that they have denied such allegations, gets the petitions disposed of accordingly. It appears to the court that such practice is adapted only to create record of being in possession and indication of such possession through orders of the court. Since the petitioner is unable to substantiate the allegation that there is any interference by the police authorities, as alleged in the present writ petition, in my view, it is not necessary to entertain the writ petition any further.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 12, 2014 LMV