APHC010189432025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9899/2025 Between: Sk Chinna Rahamtulla ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KHAJARAHAMATULLA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV, J W.P.NO.9899 OF 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:9899/2025 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 mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents failed in considering the representation of petitioner dt.23.12.2024 for the purpose of rectification of Extent of Ac.2-32 Cents in Sy.No.269/2 in Bodavada Village and fixation of boundaries and issue E-Pass books by way of mutation process for the land survey No.269/2 situated at Bodavada Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District, is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural justice under law and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt 23.12.2024 for rectification of Extent of Ac.2-32 Cents and add as Ac.3-00 cents instead of Ac.2-32 cents in the revenue record by fixation of boundaries and issue E-Pass book by mentioned as web land for an extent of Ac.3-00 cents land in Sy.No.269/2 situated at Bodavada Village, Pamur Mandal, Prakasam District in due process of law and pass...” 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 dated 23.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner. 3 NV, J W.P.NO.9899 OF 2025 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents furnished written instructions dated 11.04.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein it is stated that: “In this connection, it is respectfully submit that the Village Revenue Officer. Bodavada village who enquired into the matter has submitted his report stated that the assignment patta was granted to the writ petitioner to an extent of Ac. 2-32 cents in Sy.No.269/2 of Bodavada village vide F.Dis. No. 1319/85, dated: 30-10-1975 and as per ROR, Form No.1 register, the name of the writ petitioner is recorded to an extent of Ac.2-32 cents against the Sy.No.269/2 of Bodavada village, and assignment patta was granted to the writ petitioner to an extent of Ac.2-32 cents only in Sy.No.269/2 of Bodavada village and not assigned Ac.3-00 of land to the writ petitioner and the land is under possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.2-32 cents only, but the writ petitioner is claiming Ac.3-00 of land in Sy.No.269/2 instead of Ac.2-32 cents in excess of 0-68 cents which is not assigned to him. The Village Surveyor has reported that she has measured the land as per F.M.B and ridges shown by the writ petitioner, she identified the land measuring an extent of Ac.2-32 cents in Sy.No.269/2 of Bodavada village which is under possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioner and not an extent of Ac. 3-00 and Tobacco crop on ground to an extent of Ac. 2-32 cents only.” 5. 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 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 NV, J W.P.NO.9899 OF 2025 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 23.12.2024, 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 consider and dispose of the representation dated 23.12.2024, after providing 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 22.04.2025 LSP 5 NV, J W.P.NO.9899 OF 2025 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.9899 of 2025 22.04.2025 LSP