THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G CHANDRAIAH W.P.No. 23315 of 2009 ORDER (per Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari) 01. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing G.O.Ms. No. 493 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 26-3-2008 in spite of reports by the District Collector and the Greater Visakha Municipal Corporation as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the same and GOMs No. 256, Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 27-2-2006 and also direct the official respondents to initiate action against the persons responsible for preparing fabricated receipts and other official records. 02. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the petition are as follows: a) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that one Addepalli Venkatappaiah Sastry was the real owner of the land situated in Survey No.1011/1-A/a/3(b), Waltair, Ward No.21, Vizag, that he gave up this land after the Urban Land Ceiling Act has came into force. The GOMs No.256 dated 27-2-2006 impugned has been passed informing that the said land was allotted to Venkatapathi Raju, that the said order also shows that the possession of Venkatapathi Raju is supported by tax receipt based on which the alleged G.O was issued. It is also stated that another order in G.O.Ms. No. 493, dated 26-3-2008 has been issued, regularizing the land in favour of the 6th respondent (Venkatapathi Raju) and 7th respondents (Clover Associates Pvt.,Ltd.,) and that the petitioner has made an enquiry to know the real facts and he came to know through a letter dated 1-6-2007 issued by Visakha Municipal Corporation that the unofficial respondents have prepared fabricated receipts, based upon which, the GOs impugned were issued. It is also stated that the private respondents are taking steps to develop the land for commercial and residential purpose. Therefore, the petitioner prays to set aside the impugned GOMs No.493, dated 26-3-2008 issued by the 1st respondent and also to direct the official respondents to initiate action against the persons responsible for preparing the fabricated receipts and other official records and also issue directions to the respondents to restrain the construction activities. b) The respondent No.6, while adopting the counter filed on behalf of respondent No.7, filed a separate counter stating that he sold the piece and parcel of land admeasuring 2750 sq. mtrs or 3290 sq.yards together with a dwelling house bearing D.No.7-5-1/55/1 covered by Municipal Assessment No.31052 and compound wall on all sides, situated in T.S.No.1011/1-A/a/3(b) of Waltair ward, present Corporation Division No.21 within the limits of the greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation through a possessory agreement of sale coupled with General Power of Attorney dated 8-5-2006. It is also stated that the allegations made by the petitioner based on the report of District Collector dated 19-12-2006 is not correct as the District Collector has never alleged or attributed any illegal acts of omission or commission on the part of this respondent and that contrary to what has been alleged by the District Collector, on 4-2-2006 itself the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam sent a report in CC No.7119/76/CIS dated 4-2-2006 to the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue) Andhra Pradesh, reporting that he had personally inspected the property in question along with his official Surveyor and that the said extent of 2750 sq. mtrs was covered by a dwelling house with Assessment no.31052. It is also stated in the counter that this respondent initially paid the regularization charges at Rs.350/- per sq.mtr in view of the age of the structures and thereafter he paid the highest market rate as per GOMs No. 455 dated 29-7-2002. It is also stated that this respondent emphasizing his bonafide title and possession over the land, the original land owners i.e., the legal heirs of Sri Addepalli Venkatappayya Sastry issued a letter of ‘No Objection’ to the Special Officer, ULC, Visakhapatnam declaring that this respondent was the rightful possessor of the said extent of land and same could be regularized in my name. It is also stated that the Government after examining all the reports and communications submitted by the competent authorities of various departments, after careful examination of the issue, having been satisfied of his title, possession and enjoyment over the property in question, has regularized the same in his favour after following the due procedure. It is also stated that no public interest is involved in this litigation and therefore he prayed to dismiss the above writ petition. c) The respondent No.7 filed a detailed counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated in the counter that the present petition is liable to be dismissed in limini as it not maintainable on the ground of public interest litigation as one Praveen Asgar Mehdi and his four daughters are behind back of the present litigation, who got the present writ petition filed when they failed in their attempts to blackmail this respondent and also failed to get orders against him in WP Nos. 9842/2008 & 2771/2009 before a learned single Judge of this Hon’ble Court and in OS 225/09 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated in the counter that the documents relied upon by the writ petitioner herein are the same documents that were relied upon by the petitioners in WP Nos. 9842/2008 & WP No. 2771/09 i.e., the letter dt. 1-6-07 written by the Commissioner GVMC, letter dt. 4-7-2007 written by the Special Officer& Competent authority, Visakhapatnam and the letter dated 19-12-2006 written by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that one Addepalli Venkatappayya Sastry in the year 1983 sold an extent of 2752 sq. Mts of land to 6th respondent herein and an extent of 2870 Sq.Mts to 8th respondent herein under registered documents and thereafter R6 & R8 herein raised some structures in the said lands. It is also stated that GOMs No.256 dated 27-02- 2006 was issued regularizing 2752 sq. mts of land in favour of respondent No.6 herein after collecting a tax of Rs.350/- per Sq.Mt. and GOMs No. 424 dated 6-4-2006 was issued in favour of 8th respondent herein by collecting a tax at Rs.175/- per sq.mt. d) It is also stated that this respondent entered into 3 developmental agreements and 7 possessory agreements coupled with General Power of Attorneys with several persons in the year 2009 in respect of 4369 sq. yards of land which is adjacent to the land of 6th respondent and later he paid the property tax to the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation at the enhanced rates as demanded by it. It is also stated that he also obtained necessary permissions from the authorities concerned for construction of multi storied buildings with cellar construction by investing huge amounts. It is also stated that one Praveen Asgar Mehdi and his four daughters requested him to purchase 3720 sq. mts showing him GOMs No.1280 dated 2-09-2006 under which they got regularization of the said land in their favour, but, after verification he finds that it is only 1500 sq.mts, available for them. It is also stated that when he refused to purchase their land, Asgar Mehdi and his daughters filed WP Nos. 9842/2008 and WP No.2771/2009 seeking to withhold the developmental plans and to declare GOMs No.493, dated 26-3-2008 respectively as void. A learned single Judge of this court, though at first instance granted ad-interim injunction on 13-2-2009, later, after hearing both the writ petitions, passed a common order whereby modified the interim order granted earlier and allowed the contesting respondents therein to utilize the land allotted to them without encroachment and in case of any encroachment by them, permitted the petitioners therein to bring it to the notice of concerned authorities or to file a civil suit. It is also stated that, subsequently, the petitioners therein filed a civil suit in OS No.225 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. It is also stated that the present petition is engineered by said Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters, who, challenged the GOMs No.493, dated. 26.3.2008 which is the subject matter of the present litigation and therefore the petitioner is estopped from filing the present writ petition and is not maintainable. e) It is also stated that this respondent invested nearly Rs. 17.00 crores for the project and if the same is stopped on the ground of frivolous petitions, it will not only cause serious loss and injury to him but also to the purchasers of the apartments. It is also stated that after GOMs No.455 was issued the Government has regularized various extents of land in Visakhapatnam, on payment of land tax to the GVMC in the year 1987, including that of the said four daughters of Asgar S Mehdi in G.O.Ms.No. 1280 dated 2-9-2006 for nominal amounts, but the said extents covered under these G.Os are vacant lands and the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same, which shows that the petitioner has no bonafides. It is also stated that the petitioner herein having knowledge of regularizing the lands in favour of Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters, did not choose to question the same. The present writ petition is not by way of Public Interest Litigation and it is filed only at the behest of the said Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters to settle the private scores against this respondent under the guise of public interest litigation. f) It is also stated that the subject land is allotted to 6th respondent through GOMs No.256 dated 27-2-2006 based upon the recommendation of Special Officer & Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam by letter dated 4-2-2006 and the dispute is only regarding the assessment of the value to be taken into consideration basing upon the tax assessment, when this respondent came forward to pay the differential amount by calculating the amount payable at the highest slab rate, the Government issued GOMs No.493 directing the authority concerned to collect the differential amount by taking into consideration the highest slab rate for regularization of the land as per GOMs No.455. It is also stated that the present writ petition is only at the instigation of Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters to blackmail this respondent and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 3. It is contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the official respondents have erroneously issued GOMs No.256 dated 27- 2-2006 and GOMs No.493 dated 26-3-2008 regularizing the subject land in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 8. According to the petitioner, the land in Sy.No. 1011/1-A/a/3(b) falls under the area covered under Urban Land Ceiling Act. The owner of the land has disposed of the same in small extents. By virtue of GOMs No.256 dated 27-2-2006 the land admeasuring 2752 Sq. metrs in Sy.No. 1011/1-A/a/3(b) is shown as alienated to one Venkatapathi Raju (6th respondent) and the possession of 6th respondent is supported by house tax receipts. According to them on payment of Rs. 10.00 lakhs the said GO was issued. It is also the case of the petitioner that when the District Collected has requested the Government to see that the land in Ts No.1011/1-A/a/3(b) may be resumed back to the Government, but however, GOMs No.493 was issued regularizing the land in favour of respondents 6 and 7. It is also contended that the house tax receipts relied upon by the respondent No.6 are held to be not genuine and hence the government ought not to have issued the GOs impugned regularizing the possession of respondent No.6 and respondent No.8. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of unofficial respondents, based on the counters, submitted that on an earlier occasion also a writ petition No. 2771/2009 was filed before this Court challenging the GOs assailed herein, but the said writ petition was dismissed. Even assuming that the house numbers in the tax receipts are not tallying the said land has been regularized independently by the Government on the payment of usual charges i.e., the respondent No.6 has paid nearly Rs.1700/- per sq. meter as directed by the Government. It is also contended that the respondent No.7 after entering into developmental agreements, applied for grant of NOC to construct a building and obtained necessary permissions from the authorities concerned in accordance with law. It is also contended that GOMs No.493 dated 26-3-2008 followed by GOMs No.256 dated 27-2-2006 was issued regularizing the land which was already in possession of 6th respondent. It is also contended that the Collector has addressed a letter to the Government to rescind GOMs No.424, dated 1-6-2006 under which certain land was allotted to respondent No.8 herein after collecting Rs.175/- per sq. mtr., so also GOMs No.256 dated 27-2-2006 under which land admeasuring 2752 sq.. mtrs allotted to 6th respondent, which was directed to be regularized basing on the recommendations of Special Officer ULC dated 4-2-2006. It is also contended that certain other individuals including one Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters were also granted lands by way of regularization of lands on payment of lesser amounts aqt Rs.175/- by virtue of GOMs No.1280 dated 2-9-2006. These respondents have paid more amount i.e., nearly ten times of the amounts paid by the other individuals as directed by the Government and this petition is only a frivolous litigation to stop the construction activities taken up by the respondent No.7. 5) It is further contended that one Asgar S Mehdi and his daughters are having nearly 2000 sq. yards of land in front of the land of respondent No.6 and their lands were also got regularized by virtue of GOMs No. 1280 and they wanted R-7 to purchase their land and as the prices quoted by them is very high, R-7 did not purchase their land. In the above background they started litigating with the unofficial respondents. They also filed W.P. No. 9842 of 2008 at first instance and also filed W.P.No. 2771/2009 seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation to not to release the building plan submitted by R7 and also challenged the GOMs No.493 dt 23-6-2008. The said Asgar Mehdi also filed a suit in OS No.225/09 on the file of II Additional District Court, Visakhapatnam and sought for an injunction and the said suit was being adjourned from time to time. Meanwhile, the present writ petition was filed on 28-10-2009 challenging the same GOs, which is impermissible under law. 6) It is contended by the counsel for unofficial respondents that respondent No.7 by investing huge expenditure started construction and cellar and other portions have been completed. It is also contended that the material papers relied upon by the petitioner herein are the same material papers that were relied upon by the said Asgar Mehdi in the other writ petitions which shows that this litigation is started to take personal vengeance but no public interest is involved. At the instance of some private persons, the petitioner became the tool in their hands and filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel also contended that the subject matter of public interest litigation cannot be a public interest as the Government after collecting the property tax allotted the excess lands in favour of unofficial respondents. 7) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties and perused the material available on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the official respondents through G.O.Ms.No. 493 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 26-3-2008 impugned herein an extent of 2752 sq. mtrs land in Sy.No. 1011/1A1A/3b, Waltair Ward regularized in favour of 6th respondent herein erroneously as the said land can be utilized for public purposes by constructing houses in stead allotting in favour of private persons. It is also their case that the respondents Nos. 6 & 8 herein on payment of nominal charges got regularized the subject lands in their favour which is valuable piece of land, for which they are not entitled to. 8) We had an occasion to go through the material placed before this Court. It is a fact that initially the respondent No.6 & 8 were allotted the above extents of lands, which are vested with the Government as excess land under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1967 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) under GOMs No. 256 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 27-2-2006 and G.O.Ms.No. 424 Revenue (UC.I) Department dated 06-04-2006 respectively, but, subsequently the said G.Os were kept in abeyance based on the report received from the District Collector, Visakhapatnam in letter dated 19-12-2006 that these lands are vacant lands though the possessors claim some structures therein and the Government also ordered for an enquiry. Thereupon, the Special Officer& Competent Authority, ULC, Visakhapatnam, in his letter No.431/06B1, dated . .7.2007 and the Municipal Commissioner, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation in his letter dated 1-6-2007 submitted a they have personally inspected the subject lands and find that that there are some temporary residential structures and semi permanent structure in the land and the respondent No.6 herein also paid the house tax for the same. The District Collector, forwarded the said reports along with his report to the Government recommending to rescind the above G.Os and to resume the land to the Government. It is clear from the record that the Government after considering all these reports while withdrawing the orders of abeyance against GOMs No. 256 & 424, ordered to collect highest slab rate existing as on 29-7- 2002, i.e., at Rs.1750/- per Sq.Mtr. in partial modification of the above said G.Os to the extent of slab rates and thereby permitted the applicants therein to pay the differential amounts. Thus, the present GOMs. No.493 Revenue (UC.I) Department, dated 26-3-2008 came into existence. 9. Further, with respect to the grievance of the petitioner that the tax receipts claimed by the respondent No.6 are not genuine, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submitted that it is purely a fact finding and it should not be a basis for arriving at a conclusion that the Government shall not allot the land in his favour after collecting the slab rates. As seen from the record, it is clear that the subject land was vested with the Government under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act 1967 and it has got every power to distribute the same. Further, a reading of GOMs No.493 dated 26-3- 2008 makes it clear that the Government of Andhra Pradesh after careful examination of all reports and facts put forth before them decided that as some structures are existing in the subject land covered by GOMs.No.256 and GOMs No.424, which is under the occupation of P Venkatapathi Raju and K Naga Kanaka Brahmam on the collection of highest slab rate existing on the date of issue of orders of GOMs No.455 dated 29-7-2002 i.e., at Rs.1750/- per sq. mtr. and allowed the regularization. It is further stated in the G.O that the Govt. memo dated 23-3-2007 issued in keeping the operation of GOMs No.424 dated 6-4-2006 in abeyance was also withdrawn to facilitate the above persons to pay the differential amount and also directed the Special Officer and Competent Authority, ULC, Visakhapatnam to collect the differential amount from both the applicants in the respective G.Os i.e., respondent Nos. 6 and 8 herein. Therefore, it is clearly established from the material on record that these respondents have got regularization of the subject lands after paying the highest slab rate as required by the Government. 10. Further, as seen from the record, it is clear that challenging the G.Os impugned herein, on an earlier occasion, one Praveen Asgar Mehdi and others filed W.P.No 9842 of 2008 and 2771 of 2009 seeking a direction to the Municipal Corporation, Visakhapatnam not to release the building plan submitted by the respondent No.7 herein and to cancel GOMs No.493, dated 26-3-2008. This Court at first instance, though granted interim injunction against the respondent No.7, but after hearing both the writ petition, disposed of the same while modifying the interim orders granted by it, allowed the contesting respondents therein i.e., the unofficial respondents herein, to utilize the land allotted to them without encroaching into the rights of the petitioners therein. The learned single Judge also gave liberty to the parties therein to file a civil suit in case of any such encroachments. The main grievance of the contesting respondents herein is that the above said persons are behind back the litigation as the respondent No.7 did not agree to purchase the land allotted to them through GOMs No.1280 dated 2-9-2006 and that the material papers filed in the earlier writ petitions are the same material papers relied upon by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The above factors support the apprehension of the contesting respondents herein that the present litigation is only to meet the interests of some private individuals but no public interest is involved. 11. In this regard, as seen from the material placed before this Court, it is to be seen that respondent No.6 was allotted the subject land admeasuring 2752 sq. mtrs. on payment of Rs.350/- per sq.mtr and respondent No.8 herein was allotted the land admeasuring 2870 sq.mtrs on payment of Rs.175/- per sq.mtr. Subsequently, in view of the disputes raised by some other individuals, the Government after obtaining various reports from the authorities concerned and keeping in view the value of the land, ordered to regularize the said extents directing the above individuals to pay the value at Rs.1750/- per sq.mtr and also allowed them to pay the differential amounts through the impugned G.O. It is to be further seen that the Government while allotting the lands in favour of contesting respondents herein also allotted certain extents of lands in favour of some other private individuals on payment of meager amounts i.e., Rs.170/- per sq. mtr. and Praveen Asgar Mehdi and his four daughters were also allotted certain extents of lands on payment of Rs.170/- per sq. mtr, by virtue of GOMs No.1280 dated 2-9-2006. It is a fact that during the course of arguments it has emerged that the neighbours of unofficial respondents were also allotted certain land on collecting of the value of land at Rs.170/- per sq.mtr, which remain unquestioned by any individual even including the petitioner or Praveen Asgar Mehdi. Under the above facts and circumstances, as the petitioners in earlier writ petition have also availed the benefit of regularization on payment of lesser amount and their regularization remain unchallenged, more so when the respondents 6 & 8 herein are standing in a better position as they paid the highest slab rate as arrived at by the Government, it has to be held that the petitioner cannot contend that it is a public interest litigation and the Government erred in regularizing the possession of respondent No.6 herein. Further, it has to be held that the petitioner has no bonafide in challenging the allotment made in favour of these respondents leaving the other individuals who availed the same benefit. The fact remains that the unofficial respondents have paid the highest slab rate of Rs.1750/- per sq.mtr. which is ten times higher than what the other individuals have paid, and under the above circumstances as the regularization has been ordered on payment of amounts at a slab rate whereas the regularization has been done for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 9842/2008 and 2771/2009 at a lesser rate, the petitioner cannot agitate that the Government was put to revenue loss in regularizing the subject lands. The entire material placed before this Court would reveal that except to meet the personal requirements of some private individuals, the petitioner failed to make out any public interest involved in this litigation to interfere with the government orders impugned in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition has no merit to stand and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the aforementioned discussion, this writ petition is, therefore,