Judgment Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. This appeal is sought to be preferred and admitted against the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge, whereby His Lordship was pleased to dismiss the writ petition wherein the appellant/writ petitioner prayed for the following relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in resorting to evict the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.153 to an extent of Ac.6.67 cents of Nelakota Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District, as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violating of Article 300A and Article 31A(1) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above lands.” 2. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitioner claimed to be a lawful owner in respect of land in Sy.No.153 to the extent of Ac.6.67 cents of Nelakota Village, Devipatnam Mandal, East Godavari District. This piece of land is said to have been acquired on the strength of the pattadar pass book. According to the writ petitioner, he has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid land. It is alleged that the respondents in the writ petition all of a sudden asked the petitioner to vacate the said land. In other words, it is alleged that there is an attempt for forcible dispossession of the petitioner. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed before the learned Trial Judge denying that any attempt was made as alleged. It is also denied that the writ petitioner has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the land in question. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been specifically asserted as follows: “The 2nd respondent identified the land as fit for assignment to the landless poor comes under the category of displaced in Indira Sagar Project (Polavaram Barriage) and accordingly assigned to the eligible tribal displaced families of Nelakota village and presently the land is under the assignees possession and enjoyment. A copy of petition filed before the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavarm dated 09.12.2009 by the petitioner herein clearly evidences that the lands in question were under the joint possession and enjoyment of the villagers of same community from Nelakota Village. A copy of petition filed before the Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Rampachodavarm dated 09.12.2009 by the petitioner herein clearly evidences that the lands in question were under the joint possession and enjoyment of the villagers of same community from Nelakota Village. The petitioner herein himself admitted his non-possession and non-enjoyment. Thus, it was clearly established that the petitioner has no possession, enjoyment over the land.” 4. No affidavit in reply has been filed to controvert the aforesaid factual position. In view of non-denial, implication of the provision of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is applicable in writ jurisdiction, will be applied. The aforesaid provision is set out hereunder: “5. Specific denial – (1) Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability: Provided that the Court may in its discretion, require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. (2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader. (4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.” 5. It is true that in the aforesaid provision it is mentioned about the defendant. Though the petitioner cannot be categorized as a defendant, he can be conveniently categorized as plaintiff. However, principle behind the object of above provision is applicable treating the case made out in the counter affidavit as counter claim. When there is no denial implication of admission follows. The Court is supposed to write a judgment on the basis of admission as has been mandated by the Legislature by the aforesaid provision. The learned Trial Judge has rightly taken note of this. 6. When there is no denial implication of admission follows. The Court is supposed to write a judgment on the basis of admission as has been mandated by the Legislature by the aforesaid provision. The learned Trial Judge has rightly taken note of this. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant however says that the learned Trial Judge should not have non-suited his client to deny his right of possession. In the context of this submission we see what is the relief claimed. It appears that the petitioner wants to protect his physical possession and asked for declaration of title. Therefore, the only question in order to protect possessory right of the petitioner, is whether the petitioner is in factual possession or not. In view of the aforesaid findings we find that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he has been in factual possession. Therefore, relief is not required to be granted. The learned Trial Judge has concluded so on the basis of admission with regard to factual possession. It is also trite that admission is a conclusive proof unless explained away. 7. So, we dismiss the appeal. However, we clarify that both the judgments have been rendered on the basis of the affidavit evidence only with regard to the possession and not otherwise. Therefore, it would be open for the appellant to take action in accordance with law as may be advised. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.No order as to costs.