APHC010290182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15543/2025 Between: 1. K CHALAPATHI, A S/O K. ADINARYANA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NARASAYANAKUNA VILLAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI K. JAYAPPA, S/O K. ADINARYANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O NARASAYANAKUNA VILAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KUDERU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 6. SRI K VENKATA NAIDU, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED UNKNOWN, R/O NARASAYANAKUNA VILAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL DISTRICT. 7. SMT K NAGAMMA, W/O. K. VENKATA NAIDU, AGED UNKNOWN, R/O NARASAYANAKUNA VILAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL 2 DISTRICT. 8. SRI K TIRUPATHI NAIDU, S/O K. VENKATA NAIDU, AGED UNKNOWN, R/O NARASAYANAKUNA VILAGE, ANANTAPUR MANDAL 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 topleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents more specifically, the 4th respondent in passing the order of vide D. Dis. No. 1740/2024/Co - Ordin dated 29.03.2025, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. Consequently, set aside same, and, pass s IA 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings vide D. Dis. No. 1740/2024/Co - Ordin dated 29.03.2025 passed Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. P GANGA RAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15543/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more specifically the 4th respondent in passing the order of vide D.Dis.No.1740/2024/Co-Ordin dated 29.03.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and consequently set aside same and pass such other order.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant 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 dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioners. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the revision petition, if any pending with the respondents. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court need not decide the 4 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 himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioners, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioners, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of three(3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all the parties concerned in all respects. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 02.07.2025 TTPPSS 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 5 165 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15543/2025 02.07.2025 TTPPSS