APHC010159862025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8222/2025 Between: Maddu Ankaiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVAKUMAR SALIKITI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8222/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue an order or direction or a writ more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in not taking any steps in pursuance for mutation of revenue records in my name for the land property in Sy.No.64/A admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents situated in Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District and issuing of the Pattadar Pass Book in favour of me and not passing any orders on my representation dated 24.08.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice apart from being in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to mutate the Revenue Records in the name of the Petitioner for the land property admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Survey No.64/A in 0.40 cents situated in Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur 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 representation 24.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner requesting for mutation of title deeds and to issue pattadar pass book in his favour in respect of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents situated in Chinapalakaluru Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District. 4. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions dated 28.03.2025 issued by respondent No.4, wherein, the operative portion is extracted hereunder: “C. Purchase of Agricultural Land: The petitioner Sri Maddu Ankayya S/o late Sri Pentayya is a resident of A.T.Agraharam, Guntur Town, in Guntur West Mandal purchased an agricultural land located in Chinapalakaluru Revenue Village, Survey No. 64-A measuring an extent of Ac.0.40 cents from Sri Baaki Garatayya S/o Sri Gopayya a resident of Chinapalakaluru Village. The transaction was formalized through a registered sale document vide Reg. Doc. No. 2867/2012, dated 19.03.2012. d. Application for Mutation: The petitioner submitted applications through MeeSeva and Grama Sachivalayam on 21.07.2023, 19.07.2024 and 24.08.2024. He requested to mutate his name in revenue records and to issue Pattadar Passbook in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. e. Form 8 Publication: Following the submission of his applications, Form 8 was generated in the petitioner's name. This form was then published in the Grama Sachivalayam, inviting objections from any interested parties regarding the Record of Rights as per Andhra Pradesh Pattadar Passbook act 1971.” 5. Further, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 24.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner pending with the authorities, within a reasonable time. 6. 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 representation dated 24.08.2024, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.08.2024 submitted by the petitioner, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of two (02) 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 01.04.2025 BSP 98 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8222 of 2025 01.04.2025 BSP