.4^ ‘APHC010249642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) tuesday.the twelfth dayofaugust^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ' " PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARU WRIT PETITION MQ.- 13098 df 9n9i; —ADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Between; 1. P. Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Ram Chandra Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal, SPS Nellore Districh 2. M. Bhaskaraiah, S/o. Pappaiah Aged Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal, 59 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. SPS Nellore District. 3. M. Karunakaran, S/o. Ramanaiah, Aged 46 R/o. Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandai, 4. P. Soma Shekhar Reddy, S/o. years, Occ. Agriculture, SPS Nellore District. Krishna Reddy, Aged 51 Agriculture, R/o. Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal, 5. P. Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o. Chanchu years Occ. SPS Nellore District.- rama Reddy, Aged 79 years, R/o. District. ^Sed 63 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. Lingasamudram Village, Dakkili Mandal, SPS Nellore District 7. V. Raja Mohan Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal SPS Nellore 6. V. Muniratnama, W/o. S/o. Munnaiah Naidu Agriculture, R/o. Lingasamudram Aged 68 years Occ. Village, Dakkili Mandal, SPS Nellore District. 8. K. Chandraiah, S/o. Venkata Subba Naidu, Aged Agriculture, Lingasamudram Village, Dakkili Mandal, District. 63 years Occ. SPS N ellore 9. R. Veraswamy Naidu, S/o. Abba Naidu, Aged 57 Agriculture, R/o. MopOr Village. Dakkili Mandal Occ. years , SPS Nellore District. ' 'r* 10. M.Balakrishnaiah, S/o. Penchalaiah, Aged 69 years, Occ. Agriculture. Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal. SPS Nellore District: 11. S. Venkateshwarulu, S/o. Seshama Naidu Aged 58 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal, SPS Nellore District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Nellore District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dakkili, SPSR Nellore District. 4. The Tahasildar, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore Distript ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue a Writ, order the High Court may be or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the Respondent No.4 not considering the representation dated 04-04-2025 and not implementing the order dated 13-12-2018 passed in W.P. no. 45269 of 2018 by the Combined Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of AP at Hyderabad to make online entries and issue e-passbooks of the lands in Survey No. 'l P admeasuring c.243 00 cents, in Namasivayapuram village, Vbnkatagiri Taluk^, Dakkili Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, as arbitrary illegal in violation of the above orders and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to make online entries and to issue their said lands situated books to the petitioners to Namasivayapuram Village, Dukkali Mandal. e-pass at lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to \ V direct the Respondent No.4 to consider the pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: representation dated 04-04-2025 NIMMALA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13098 of 2025 ORDER: Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that a representation was made to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dakkili, SPSR Nellore District, 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 the case. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that: 2. Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick 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 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 3. 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 2 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. 4. 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. However, the respondents are directed to consider the 5. petitioner's representation, examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR deputy registrar SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur 1. The Principal Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings 2. The District Collector, Nellore District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dakkili, SPSR Nellore District. 4. TheTahasildar, Dakkili Mandal. SPSR, Nellore District. 5. One CC to Sri Satyanarayana Nimmala, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb 0^ HIGH COURT DATED: 12/08/2025 ORDER WP No.13098 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS