Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12642 (AP)

KATRAGADDA SUPRIYA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/7850/2025 · 2025-03-28

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010149542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7850/2025 Between: Katragadda Supriya ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:7850/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “ to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 4th respondent in not taking action on the petitioners F-Line application dated 12.11.2024 in application No.DER012401526970 for the survey and sub division of the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Survey No.299/2 of Koppolu Revenue Village in Ongole Mandal of Prakasam District as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to consider the petitioner’s F-Line application dated 12.11.2024 in application NO.DER012401526970 for the survey and sub division of the agricultural land for an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Survey No.299/2 of Koppolu Revenue Village in Ongole Mandal of Prakasam District and pass such other order or orders….” 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 consider and dispose of the F-line application dated 12.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner requesting for survey and sub division of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.8.06 cents in Sy.No.299/2 situated at Koppolu Revenue Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the F-line application dated 12.11.2024 submitted by the petitioner pending with the authorities, within a reasonable time. 5. In view of the submission of the learned 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 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 F-line application dated 12.11.2024, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the F-line application dated 12.11.2024, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 28.03.2025 BSP 105 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.7850 of 2025 28.03.2025 BSP