APHC010235912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Dulla Venkatesh The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13945 OF 2025 AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: T DIWAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13945 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not mutating the petitioners name in revenue records in respect of the agricultural land in Sy.No.704/1, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents in Odiveedu Village, Veeraballi Mandal, Annamayya District as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 (Act No 26 of 1971) and also contrary to Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to mutate the petitioners name in revenue records in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.3.00 Cents in Sy.No.704/1 admeasuring to an extent of Odiveedu Village, Veeraballi Mandal, Annamayya District and pass such other order…” 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents 2 to 4 to dispose of the Representation dated 25.03.2025 stating that keeping pending the same without passing any order is violative of principles of the Constitution of India, as speedy justice is also part of fundamental right as guaranteed under Constitution of India. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the Representation dated 25.03.2025, if any pending with the respondent authorities. 4. In view of the submission of Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. 5. 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 Representation dated 25.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 to 4 to dispose of the Representation dated 25.03.2025 in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing of the petitioner, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date: 23.06.2025 KK 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544