APHC010245892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12420/2025 Between: S. Vijaya Babu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dt. 18.03.2025 for mutation of his name in the revenue records for the lands admeasuring Ac.6.40 cents in Sy.No.258 and Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.259 of Kananam Bedu Village, B.N. Kadriga Mandal, Tirupati District as illegal and arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 16 and 300- A of the Constitution of the India, Consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 18.03.2025 and to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records for the lands admeasuring Ac.6.40 2 cents in Sy.No.258 and Ac.7.04 cents in Sy.No.259 of Kananam Bedu Village, B.N. Kadriga Mandal, Tirupati District and pass such other order. 2. 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 the representation dated 18.03.2025 of the Petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondents readily agreed to consider the representations dated 18.03.2025, if any pending with the authorities. 4. In view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for 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 overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to consider the representation dated 18.03.2025, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 18.03.2025 of the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing 12019 (8) SCALE 544 3 a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders if any. No costs. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 07.05.2025 kkllkk 4 295 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12420 of 2025 07.05.2025 kkllkk 5