APHC010161562025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8643/2025 Between: Orsu Alivelamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8643/2025 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 action of Respondent No.3 in non-deciding the Revision Petition and Stay petition, dated 20.11.2024 filed by the Petitioners under Section 9 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the rules framed thereunder against the proceedings made by the 4th Respondent in mutating the name of Respondents Nos.5 to 9 in all record of rights in respect of Petitioner’s ancestral property admeasuring Ac.0-68 Cents comprising Ac.0-31 Cents out of total extent Ac.5-60 Cents in Sy.No.380/1A and Ac.0-37 Cents out of Ac.4-55 Cents in Sy. No. 389 of Pedanagulavaram Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal, irregular, and amounts to non- discharge of legal obligation conferred on him/her under such statute and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to decide said Revision and Stay petition in accordance with law and pass...” 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 petitioners 3 requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the revision submitted by the petitioners 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.0-68 Cents comprising Ac.0-31 Cents out of total extent Ac.5-60 Cents in Sy.No.380/1A and Ac.0-37 Cents out of Ac.4-55 Cents in Sy. No. 389 of Pedanagulavaram Village, Markapuram Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents expressed that the petitioner is entitled for adjudication and to dispose of the revision submitted by the petitioners pending with the authorities, within a reasonable time. 6. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the 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 not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 revision, 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 dispose of the revision submitted by the petitioners, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of 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 04.04.2025 LSP 5 56 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8643 of 2025 04.04.2025 LSP