::1:: APHC010169902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8743/2025 Between: B Muni Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8743/2025 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioners for the following relief: “..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the petitioners’ online F-line application in spite of issuing the notice L.Dis.23/2025 dated 10.02.2025 in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0.57 cents in Sy.No.200 3A of Arikela Village, Ramasamudram Mandal, Annamayya District as being illegal, irregular and irrational and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on them under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the above lands and pass such”. 2. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the Petitioners. ::3:: 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners, if any pending with the authorities. 4. 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 no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit their representation/explanation to the notice in L.Dis.23/2025, dated 10.02.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with all relevant documents to prove their possession over the subject property and upon such representation/explanation, the respondent 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::4:: authorities shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Till such time, the Respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, without following due process of law. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt:03.04.2025 krk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 106 WRIT PETITION NO: 8743/2025 03.04.2025 krk