APHC010125912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6260/2025 Between: Madepu Ramana Appa Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6260 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “to issue a writ, order or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not placing the lands to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents in Sy.No.503/7 situated at Sundarayyapeta, H/o Seethanagaram of Anakapalli Mandal and District in disputed register in online webland in view of pendency of revision in RP.No.8/2024 before the 3rd respondent between the petitioner and 6th respondent and pending restoration petition in O.S.No.15/2018 in the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Anakapalle between the 6th respondent and writ petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constituion of India and pass such.” 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent without touching the merits. 3. In view of limited request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 3rd respondent concerned are directed to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, though this Court is conscious about the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh 1 ”, wherein the Honourable Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioners, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 4. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the revision filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status-quo in respect of the subject property shall be maintained by all concerned. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:12.03.2025 krk 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 54 WRIT PETITION NO.6260 of 2025 12.03.2025 krk