IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WP(PIL) NO: 23 OF 2025 Between: Koduri Manikanta Kumar, S/o. Prasad, aged 28 years. Advocate, R/o. D.No.29-38-37, Shop 8, FF Ammana Estates, Museum Road, Governorpet, Vijayawada - 540 002 ... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretary Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Palnadu District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurajala Revenue Division, Palnadu District. 4. The Tahsildar, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Durgi Village, Durgi Mandal, Palnadu District. The Sub-Registrar, Gurajala SRO, Gurajala, Palnadu District. 7. The Superintendent of Police, Palnadu District. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gurajala, Palnadu District. 9. The Inspector of Police, Karampudi Circle, Palnadu District. 10. The Station House Officer, Durgi Police Station, Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District. 6. 11. The Paluvai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd, Rep. by its Secretary, Paluvai Village, Renta Chinthala Mandal, Palnadu District. J2‘! Mr. Accha Ravi Sankhar, S/o. Veeramallayya, aged 48 years, R/o. D.No. 9-163 Macherla Village and Mandal, Palnadu District. 13. Gumma Venkateswarlu, S/o. Chinna Venkatayya, Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District r ... 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 any Writ, order or direction more specifically one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions of the tenth respondent and fourth respondent in not initiating any action against the 12*^^ and 13 respondents for forging revenue records by creating false subdivision survey no. 474/1 and 487/1 in Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 5.32 cents and Ac. 5.12 cents which were originally part of survey no. 474 and 487 of Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District as illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2 and 7**^ respondent to initiate necessary action against the 12**^ and 13*^ respondents and such officials who assisted them in falsifying revenue records of the land belonging to the Government in survey numbers 474 and 487 of Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District admeasuring to extent of Ac. 5.32 cents and Ac. 5.12 cents which belongs to the Bugga Vagu Reservoir and further direct the 2nd respondent to demarcate land of thd government take over the possession of the land and to put it to public use if any and further direct the respondent authorities to initiate the necessary enquiry against all the officers who supported the 12*^ and 13'*^ respondents in falsifying the revenue records in the above stated land which caused the loss to the government. th ncl 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 call for records of the land in issue, i.e., survey no. 474, 474-1, 487, 487-1, of Durgi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District and also direct the revenue authorities namely second respondent to sixth respondent to not to not to make any changes to the revenue records pertaining to above survey numbers. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR STAMPS AND REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 10: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.11 to 13:— The Court made the following: ORDER 'mpfiPIL) Wo. 23 of2025 1 APHC010040822025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3483] WP(PIU NO: 23/2025 Between: Koduri Manikanta Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.DUGGIRALA SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HOME 2.GP FOR REVENUE 3.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 07.03.2025 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) This writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is filed questioning the inaction of respondent no. 10 in initiating enquiry and registering case against respondent nos. 12 and 13. 2. The petitioner alleged that respondent nos. 12 and 13 have created false survey records in respect of certain extent of government lands in Durgi ez: 30 WP((pIL) Wo. 23 of2025 2 Village and Mandal by exerting political influence on the revenue officials as if they were their private lands and further respondent no. 12 was involved in a financial scam of obtaining loan from respondent no.ll-Paluvai Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Paluvai on the strength of fabricated revenue records. 3. The contents of the writ affidavit would indicate that the petitioner made representation dated 23.11.2024 to the Station House Officer, Durgi Police Station to investigate into the irregularities committed by respondent nos. 12 & 13 in falsification of records and availment of loan by respondent no. 12 on the strength of false records. Since the said representation remained unanswered, the petitioner made a request on 8.12.2024 to expedite. Except asking the Tahsildar to furnish ownership details and possession certificates of the disputed land, no action whatsoever was taken so far. 4. Heard Sri Duggirala Subash, learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents of the writ affidavit. 5. In Sakari Vasu v. State of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para-11 as follows: "In this connection we wouid iike to state that if a person has a grievance that the poiice station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPQ then he can approach the Superintendent of Poiice under Section 154(3) CrPC by an appiication in writing. Even if that does not yieid any satisfactory resuit in L (2008) 2 see 409 r U^V((PIL) No. 23 of2025 3 >4 the sense that either the FIR is stiii not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is heid, it is open to the aggrieved person to fiie an appiication under Section 156(3) CrPC before the iearned Magistrate concerned. If such an appiication under Section 156(3) is hied before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and aiso can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation is made. The Magistrate can aiso under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 6.In All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union v // Union of India^, the Hontile Supreme Court in paras-4 to 6 held as follows: "4. When the information is iaid with the police but no action in that behaif was taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the concerned police to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/ evidence recorded prima facie discloses offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. 5. In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. As a consequence, without availing of the above procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the Fiigh Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offence. The High Court, therefore, though for different reasons, was justified in refusing to grant the reliefas sought for. 6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. If, however, does not preclude the petitioner to follow either of the procedure as Indicated above, if so advised and deemed appropriate." 7.It is thus clear from the above observations that if any person is aggrieved by the inaction of the police officials in registering the FIR, the (1996) 11 see 582 ^CJ ez: 50 'WV(‘PIL) 9^0.23 of2025 4 modalities contained in Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code are to be adopted. 8.1n the instant case, the petitioner did not avail the efficacious alternate remedy available to him, instead he filed this writ petition in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. 9. In Sakari Vasu (supra 1), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Para-25 held as follows: "25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/ or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to hie a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternate remedy, ifrst under Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police ofifcers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3)." 10.In Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and other^ the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at para-3, held as follows: "3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." Il.The observations not only lay down that in view of availability of alternate efficacious remedy to the person aggrieved of non-registration of his L (2016) 6 see 277 JfCJ ^ 'RCJ 'WV((pIL) 5Vb. 23 of 2025 5 is not maintainable, but also caution the ultimately result, if writ petitions of complaint, writ for the said purpose High Courts the consequences that may that nature are entertained. that the concerned Station 12. The grievance in this writ petition is House Officer did not register case against the unofficial respondents on the of the observations made by the above referred decisions, the modalities representation submitted by him. In view Hon'ble Supreme Court in contained in Section 190 adopted. For the said purpose, writ petition more patticuiariy writ in the nature of Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable. read with Section 200 of the Code are to be 13. In view of the above, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to Sri Duggirala Subash, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] and Registration, High Court of Andhra 2. Two CCS to GP for Revenue, 3. Two CCs to GP for Stamps Pradesh. [OUT] 4. Two CCs to GP for Home 5. Three CD Copies. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER OpANDW^ WP(PIL).No.23 of 2025 ■S' 15 MAR Z025 g; Curfent Section / DISMISSING THE W.P.(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS