::1:: APHC010150002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7699/2025 Between: Rajana Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner for the following relief: ..”to issue order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the FORM-VlA application dated 11.02.2025 submitted vide Application No.MLPM250111066333 for ::2:: issuance of Pattadar Passbook and for mutating the name of the petitioner in all Revenue Records in respect of land L P M No.1038 to an extent of Ac.1.99 Cents in Sy.No.145/8, 145/9,145/11,145/15,146/31,146/32,146/33 and 146/35 situated at Krishnampalem village, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli district as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Articles and 300-A of the Constitution of India and 14, 21 consequently direct the respondents to mutate the name of the Petitioner in all Revenue Records and also to issue Pattadhar Passbooks in favor of the Petitioner and pass other order” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Late Lalam Sanyasamma, W/o Ramunaidu, was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.13.20 cents situated in Krishnampalem and Rajakoduru villages, Rambilli Mandal, Anakapalli District. On 25.02.1980, she executed a registered Gift Settlement Deed in favor of the petitioner, along with his brother Rajan Apparao and sister Muddu Satyavathi. Subsequently, the gift deed was cancelled through a registered Cancellation Deed dated 21.11.1997, and the land was sold on 22.11.1997 to the following individuals i.e., Rajana Ramulamma, W/o Apparao to an extent of Ac.2.86 cents, Rajana Venkunaidu, S/o Apparao to an extent of Ac.4.47 cents, Rajana Ramunaidu, S/o Apparao to an extent of Ac.5.26 cents. These transactions involved various survey numbers (Sy. No. 145/3 to 145/13, 145/16, 145/23, ::3:: 146/23, 146/32, 146/33, and 146/35). Later, the petitioner along with his sister filed O.S. No. 57 of 2004 before the Senior Civil Judge, Court, Yelamanchili, seeking partition of the properties. The matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on 28.02.2006 through a compromise, clearly delineating the shares of each party, excluding the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4.00 cents sold by the late Sanyasamma to third parties. Following the compromise, all parties took possession of their respective shares, which were duly mutated in the revenue records, and passbooks were also issued in respect of entire extent except for Ac.8.26 cents in Sy. No. 145 and 146 situated in Krishnampalem village. As per the Lok Adalat award, the petitioner was allotted Ac.1.995 cents in Sy. No. 145/8, 145/9, 145/11, 145/15, 146/31, 146/32, 146/33 and 146/35. He further submits that, the 4th respondent is trying to mutate the names of other family members in respect of the subject property, without conducting any inquiry or issuing any notice as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. The petitioner alone has rightful claim over the subject property. On 11.02.2025, the petitioner submitted an application/representation requesting for mutation of his name in the revenue records and issuance of passbooks in Form-6A in respect of Ac.1.99 cents in Sy. No. 145/8, 145/9, 145/11, 145/15, 146/31, 146/32, 146/33 and 146/35. Despite receipt of the representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2025, the ::4:: revenue authorities neither considered the application/representation of the petitioner nor issued other proceedings. Hence the writ petition. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents readily agreed to consider the Form-6A application/ representation of the petitioner dated 11.02.2025, if any pending with the authorities in accordance with law. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents, 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 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 no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to consider the Form-6A application/representation dated 11.02.2025, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::5:: 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the Form-6A application/representation dated 11.02.2025 of the Petitioner within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt: 25.03.2025 klk ::6:: 201 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7699 of 2025 25.03.2025 ::7:: klk