APHC010468872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 172 OF 2025 Between: Borra Subba Rao, S/o Gopayya, aged about 64 years, R/o H.No.5-55/A, Seethanagaram Village, Chinthalapaudi Mandal, Eluru District. ...PETITIONER AND Secretariat 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Building, Secretatirat, Valagapudi, Guntur District Rep by its Chief Secretary. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Govt, of Andhra Pradesh, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The District Collector, Eluru, Eluru District. 4. The Land Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzveedu, Eluru District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District. 6. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajahmundry Rajamahendravaram, West Godavari District. 7. The Divisional Forest Officer, Eluru Division, Eluru District. Circle 8. Suraneni Chakradhara Rao, S/o Late Rangamannar Swawmy, aged not known to the petitioner, Pettayyagudem Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal Eluru District. 9. Suraneni Appa Rao, S/o Late Jagannadha Rao, aged not known to the petitioner, Pettayyagudem Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal,Eluru District. 10. Kotagiri Kondala Rao, S/o Late Narayana Rao, aged not known to the petitioner, Pettayyagudem Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal Eluru District. 11. Kotagiri Venkata Ram Mohan Kondal Rao, S/o Manmadha Rao, aged not known to the petitioner, Pettayyagudem Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District. 12. Chalasani Anjana Prasad, S/o Ramachadnra Rao, aged about 55 years, R/o Pinakadimi Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. > 13. Gadde Kishore, S/o Satyanarayana Aged about 55 years, R/o Jagannadhapuram Village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. 14. Atiuri Swarajya Lakshmi, W/o Rama Chandra Rao Aged about 84 years, R/o Palerlamudi Village, Nujiveedu Mandal. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 in not distributing the lands to agriculture labourers, village artisans, weaker sections and other poor persons, owning no houses or house sites to an extent of Ac. 128.00 cents in RS.No.1 of Pettayyagudem Village, Chinthalapudi Mandal, Eluru District, pursuant to the No.691/CrP/75, LCC.No.1469/1471 /CTP/75 and LCC.No.1468/1470/CTP/75, dated 05.03.2012, 26.3.2012 respectively on the file of the 4*'^ respondent is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 Orders in LCC.No.690/CTP/75, LCC 0^ and Rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to 5 to distribute the lands to agriculture labourers, village artisans, weaker sections and other poor persons, owning no houses or house sites to an extent of Ac. 128.00 cents in RS.No.l of Chinthalapudi Mandal, LCC.No.690/CTP/75, LCC N0.691/CTP/75, LCC.No.1469/1471 /CTP/75 and LCC.No.1468/1470/CTP/75, dated 05.03.2012, 26.3.2012 respectively on the file of the 4'^ respondent, by declaring the Regd. Sale Deeds vide No.3808 of 2015, dt 01.09.2015, Regd. Sale Deeds vide No.3821 of 2015, dated 31.08.2015, Regd. Sale Deed No.3806 of 2015, dt 31.08.2015, Reg. Sale Deed vide Doc.No.2838 of 2015, dt 31.08.2015 and Sale Deed Doc.No.3818 of 2015.1.9.2015 on the file of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Chinthalapudi, Eluru District as null and void. Pettayyagudem Village, Eluru District, pursuant to the Orders in lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to initiate enquiry regarding failure to take steps pursuant to the determination of the excess land In terms of Orders in LCC.No.690/CTP/75, LCC No.691/CTP/75, LCC.No.1469/1471/CTP/75 & LCC.No.1468/1470/CTP/75, ated 05.03.2012, 6.3.2012 respectively on the file of the 4th respondent as per Section 9 and 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V. V. N. NARAYANARAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7:GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 14:-— The Court made the following order: Bench Sr.No:-7 [3483] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI APHC010468872025 i WP(PIL) NO; 172 of 2025 ...Petitioner Borra Subba Rao, Vs. ...Responclent(s) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ********** Mr. VV N Narayana Rao Advocate for Petitioner: GP for Revenue Advocate(s) for Respondent(s); CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 10^'' September 2025 P C ; The present petition has been filed purportedly in public interest to highlight the alleged failure on the part of the official respondents to implement the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and rules made thereunder inasmuch as the land which required to be surrendered after determining the ceiling areas under Section 9 of the aforementioned Act, had not been surrendered by private respondent Nos.8 to 14 or their predecessors in interest, which otherwise could have been allotted for use as house sites for the landless and the poor. was 2 HCJ a RC, J W.P(PIL) No;172 of 2025 In our opinion, the present petition is nothing but one to settle personal with the private respondents herein, who are residing in the same village as the petitioner. 3. In Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary', the Apex Court had emphasized that it was only a person acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in the proceeding of PIL alone would have a locus standi and could approach the Court to wipe out the tears of the poor and needy, suffering from violation of their fundamental rights, but not a person for personal gain or private profit or political motive or any oblique consideration who could maintain such a petition. It was further held that a vexatious petition under the colour of PIL brought before the court for vindicating any personal grievance, deserves to be rejected at the threshold. In Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State Of Maharashtra^, it is held as 2. scores under; 12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effec^ve weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta.... 13 Mi992)4 SCC 305 ' 2005 (1) see 590 3 HCJ a RC,J W.P(PIL) No:172 of 2025 14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect." The same was reiterated in Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra & Others^ Be that as it may, based upon the material on record, we are of the opinion that the present petition has been filed not in general public interest but only for oblique purposes against the private respondents. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 4. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed ^2007(14) see 281 Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri V. V. N. Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED; 10/09/2025 I ORDER WP(PIL) NO. 172 OF 2025 5 2 3 SEP 2025 r . Current Section . foi. DISMISSING THE W.P.(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS