APHC010136132025 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: 6912/2025 Between: Talari Narayana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 6912/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in trying to evict the petitioners from their property admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.18 cents in Sy.No.1020-2 and Ac.1.60 cents in Sy.No.959/2A situated in Usthikayalapenta Village, Yerravaripalem Mandal, Tirupati District without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also violation of principles of natural justice which is subject matter of DKT Patta bearing Patta No.AM.64/4/1417, dated 10.01.2008, subject matter of an Appeal Roc.B4/3157/ 2018 pending on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector, Tirupati and also subject matter of a Suit O.S.No.153 of 2018 pending on the file of the Honourable Principal Junior Civil Judge, Piler, Annamayya District and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the above said property and to pass such other order or orders….” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, to issue a direction to the 3rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1. 4. Learned 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 Government Pleader for Revenue, I 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 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 petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the Appeal preferred by petitioner No.1, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioner No.1, in accordance with law, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till disposal of the said Appeal, Status quo 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 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. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.03.2025 BSP 171 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.6912 of 2025 18.03.2025 BSP