I APHC010245142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) QMS 0^ MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUSTw TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE v PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13494 OF 2025 Between: Pandhi Pedda Padmamma, W/o Muni Swamy, Aged about 59 years, R/o Veerareddy Palem, Varini, Vidavaluru, Neltore. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Its Principal Secretary Revet^tie Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Nellore District at Nellore. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali Division, Kavali, Nellore District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District.^ 5. Thullluru Srinivasulu, S/o Ramanaiah, Aged about 45 Cultivation, R/o Veerareddypalem Village, Varini Majra Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. years, Occ , Vidavalur ...Respondentk" Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not restoring the Donka Land at Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District encroached by the respondent No. 5, is illegal. arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, provisions of Board Standing Orders and Land Encroachment Act and consequently direct the respondents No.2 ef 4 to restore the Donka Land in Sy. No. 1-604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, encroached by the 5th respondent. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section ISV'CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28-04-2025 for restoring the Donka Land in Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, encroached by the 5th respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA ' Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: — The Court made the following order: APHC010245142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BfAH [3330] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 13494/2025 Between: 1.PANDHI PEDDA PADMAMMA, , W/0 MUNI SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/0 VEERAREDDY PALEM, VARINI, VIDAVALURU, NELLORE. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE DISTRICT AT NELLORE. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI DIVISION, KAVALI, NELLORE DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, VIDAVALURU MANUAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. 5.THULLLURU SRINIVASULU, S/O RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/0 VEERAREDDYPALEM VILLAGE, VARINI MAJRA, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the action of the respondents in not restoring the Donka Land at Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District encroached by the respondent No. 5, is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, provisions of Board Standing Orders and Land Encroachment Act and consequently direct the respondents No.2 to 4 to restore the Donka Land in Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, encroached by the 5th respondent, and to pass such 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 28-04-2025 for restoring the Donka Land in Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, encroached by the 5*^ respondent, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 13494 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the action of the respondents in not restoring the Donka Land at Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District encroached by the respondent No. 5, is illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, provisions of Board Standing Orders and Land Encroachment Act and consequentlydirect the respondentsNo.2 to 4 to restore the Donka Land in Sy. No. 1604 of Varini Veerareddypalem Village, Vidavaluru Mandal, Nellore District, encroached by the 5"’ respondent and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that a representation was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of 2. the case. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of 3. India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that: Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a guick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory Institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant 4 costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, 4. before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale' issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court to tribunal deciding to direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. 5. Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice. 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 28.04.2025, must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of the order is received 5 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue ^^artment. Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Nellore District at Nellore. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali DivisioV^ Kavali, Nellore District. 4. The Tahsildar, Vidavaluru M^al, Nellore District. 5. One CC to Sri Harinath Redd^oma, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED: 18/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 13494 OF 2025 5( 1 1 SEP [rent Sec egATQ DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS