APHC010129212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6517/2025 Between: P. Sreenatha Pawan Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. INENI VENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6517/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 non disposing of the stay petition in appeal No.RC.No.3049/22/D2 (B3) filed by the petitioner against the orders passed by the 4th respondent in R.Dis.No.325/2021 (B) dated 05.07.2022 resumed to the Government petition schedule property of petitioner in Sy.No.539-2 extent 0.38 cents and survey No.540-2 extent 0.33 cents situated in B.K.Samudram Village and Mandal, Anantapuramu District is illegal, arbitrary and against law consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petition schedule property of the petitioner’s and pass such other order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal submitted by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the appeal, if any pending with the respondents. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of 3 India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the 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 dispose of the appeal, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the appeal vide Rc.No.3049/22/D2 (B3) preferred by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, status- quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in respect of the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2025 TTPPSS 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 4 133 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6517 of 2025 18.03.2025 TTPPSS