Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 18371 (AP)

KAKUMARU SUGUNA RAO v. State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/12688/2025 · 2025-05-07

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010254362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12688/2025 Between: Kakumaru Suguna Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JESTADI PRUDVI RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV, J W.P.NO.12688 OF 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:12688/2025 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the 4th respondent in not considering the petitioners representation dated 02.07.2016 and 09.04.2025, thereby requesting to remove the pipes stocking point which is being run by the un-official respondents on the petitioners D-Patta house sites in Sy.No. 104/1A situated in Pellur Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District is illegal, irregular, irrational and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands( Prohibition of Transfer Act, 1977 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to restore the petitioners house site possession by removing the pipes stocking point run by the respondents 5 and 6 in pursuant to the petitioners representation and pass such….”(in verbatim) 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations dated 02.07.2016 and 09.04.2025 submitted by the petitioners. 3 NV, J W.P.NO.12688 OF 2025 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions submitted by the 4th respondent dated 08.05.2025, wherein it is stated that: “In this connection, it is submitted that the Village Revenue Officer of Pellur village of this Mandal has reported that the Sy.No.104/1 full extent is Ac.11-43 cents as per F.L.R of Pellur village and classified as Kunta Poramboke, out of this an extent, an extent of Ac.8-50 cents is covered by houses called as Pragathi Nagar and an extent of Ac.0-50 cents covered by Kunta in existence on ground and an extent of Ac.2-43 cents is vacant on ground and the writ petitioners are not residing in Sy.No.104/1 of Pellur village (Pragathi Nagar) of Ongole Mandal. The representation of the writ petitioners was forwarded to the Revenue Inspector and Mandal Surveyor for enquiry and report. After receiving the report from them, action will be taken according to rules in force and as per law within a month.” 5. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, 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 not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners they requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations dated 02.07.2016 and 09.04.2025, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 1 2004 (1) SCC 769 4 NV, J W.P.NO.12688 OF 2025 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations dated 02.07.2016 and 09.04.2025, 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 08.05.2025 LSP 5 NV, J W.P.NO.12688 OF 2025 106 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.12688 of 2025 08.05.2025 LSP