IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10946 of 2009 Between: I.V.N. Raju S/o. Late Kasi Raju R/o. 39-7-57, Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 District Collector, Collectorate, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530 002. 2 Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Visakhapatnam 3 Sub Registrar (Dwarakanagar) Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam-530 016. 4 Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, O/o. Collectorate, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam-530 002. 5 Namballa Ayyappa S/o. Late Poornayya R/o.39-8-33, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 6 Namballa Madhava Rao S/o. Ayyappa R/o.39-19-40, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 7 Namballa Kesavayya S/o. Late Poornayya R/o.39-2-13/1, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 8 Namballa Sreeramulu S/o. Late Poornayya R/o.39-5-5/2, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 9 Vavilala Kunchamma Husband's name not known R/o.39-10-45/1, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 10 Kuna Adeyya S/o. Late Chandraiah R/o. 22-62-3, Viyyapuvanipalem, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam-530 046. 11 Namballa Uttaramma W/o. Late Narasimha Murthy R/o.39-19-40, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 12 Namballa Naga Raju S/o. Butchibhotlu (alias Sundara Rao) R/o.39-19-40, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 007. 13 Namballa Ramu S/o. Butchibhotlu (alias Sundara Rao) R/o.39-19-40, Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam-530 007. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dt. 25.08.1981 passed in CCNo.8(1)/6(1)/6649/76 by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to take the surplus land from the respondents 5 to 13 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No. 2. Sri N. Ranga Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.4: Government Pleader for Ceiling The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This petition has been filed in the nature of public interest litigation by a person who has not given any details with regard to the social work done by him or as to how he is concerned with the public welfare. In this petition, order dated 25-08-1981 passed by respondent No. 4 under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 has been challenged. The impugned order was passed in favour of some of the respondents and the petitioner has made an effort to make out a case that the impugned order is bad in law because by virtue of the said order, some land which could have been vested in the State has been now vested in some of the respondents. In our opinion, this is a frivolous petition, perhaps filed with an oblique motive as it has been filed after more than 28 years. It would be most unjust to look into the validity of the impugned order by virtue of which some right had been created in favour of some of the respondents in 1981. The petition does not appear to be a bonafide one and, therefore, it is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 5th June, 2009 ks