APHC010173222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8959/2025 Between: G. Chenchaiah, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:8959/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in mutating my name in the revenue records and issuance of pattadar passbooks for an extent of Ac.2.52 cents in Sy.No.202/3 of Vedanthapuram Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal though my title was established in the common Judgment dated 13.03.2024 in A.S.Nos.453 and 613 of 2003 and confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 04.10.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17480-17481 of 2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, devoid of principles of natural justice, violative of provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971 (Act No.26 of 1971) and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to mutate my name in revenue records and issue pattadar passbooks in respect of Ac.2.52 cents in Sy.No. 202/3 of Vedanthapuram Village Tirupati Rural Mandal Chittoor District and pass to 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, more particularly, respondent No.2 herein to consider and dispose of the ROR Appeal dated 17.09.2024 preferred by the petitioner herein. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the ROR Appeal dated 17.09.2024 preferred by the petitioner would be considered by the respondent authorities, in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. 5. In view of the submission made by 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 ROR Appeal dated 17.09.2024, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.2 herein to consider and dispose of the ROR Appeal dated 17.09.2024 preferred by the petitioners, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 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 07.04.2025 BSP 67 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.8959 of 2025 07.04.2025 BSP