APHC010304792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: Between: G Chalapathi Raju The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15295/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: [3329] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15295/2025 The Court made the following Order: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “..Pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not considering the appeal filed by the petitioners on 19.03.2025 and not disposing of the same under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 as arbitrary illegal in violation of Article 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to consider and dispose of the Appeal filed by the petitioners on 19032025 under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act 1971 in accordance with law and to pass..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the appeal dated 19.03.2025 preferred by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue not refused and agreed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, 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 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 petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the appeal, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal dated 19.03.2025 preferred by the petitioner, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.06.2025 KKV 69 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15295 of 2025 24.06.2025 KKKKVV