APHC010176592025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9225/2025 Between: Adduri Gopi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VAMSI KRISHNA VARANASI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9225/2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the inaction on the 2nd and 3rd respondents with regard to the non-disposal of the statutory appeal filed under Section 5(5) of the ROR Act, 1971 in respect of the Sy.No.93, measuring an extent of Ac.1.58 cents situated in Laxmipuam Village, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District, and further directing that the schedule property not to alienated in favour of the third parties, by declaring the impugned inaction as being illegal, arbitrary and in gross violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India…” 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 Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider and dispose of the ROR Appeal dated 19.02.2025 preferred by the petitioner herein. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the ROR Appeal dated 19.02.2025 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 19.02.2025, 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 Nos.2 and 3 herein to consider and dispose of the ROR Appeal dated 19.02.2025 preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 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 09.04.2025 BSP 34 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9225 of 2025 09.04.2025 BSP