15 4 APHC010342172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17420 OF 2025 Between: Allu Lakshminarayanamma, W/o Tavudu (late), aged about 70 yrs, R/0 Bavijipeta @ Vanapeta Village, Kurudu Post, Kotabommali Srikakulam District. mandal. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Collectorate office at Srikakulam Srikakulam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Sub Collector, Tekkali Division. Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahasildar, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5. Allu Chittivadu, S/o Late Nukayya, R/o Bavajipeta @ Vanapeta Village, Kurudu Post, Kotabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. Allu Verranna, S/o Late Nukayya, R/o Bavajipeta @ Vanapeta Village, Kurudu Post, Kotabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. 7. Allu Simhachalam, S/o Late Nukayya, R/o Bavajipeta @ Vanapeta Village, Kurudu Post, Kotabommalimandal, Srikakulam District. Town, ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent no.2 to conduct a detail enquiry with regarding to illegal mutation done by Respondent no.4 and consequently declare the mutation with regarding to my Wet land property having of Ac. 0.32 Cents, bearing Sy. No. 346-4B situated an extent in Kurudu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District., is illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 to direct the respondents no. 2&3 to dispose of my representations dated 30/04/2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI METTA CHENDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7: The Court made the following order: RAO APHC010342172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0*0 [3330] 0|K:?i TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17420/2025 Between: 1.ALLU LAKSHMINARAYANAMMA,, W/0 TAVUDU (LATE), AGED ABOUT 70 YRS, R/0 BAVIJIPETA @ VANAPETA VILLAGE, KURUDU POST, KOTABOMMALIMANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, SECRETARY, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OFFICE AT SRIKAKULAM TOWN, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM SUB COLLECTOR, TEKKALI DIVISION, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHASILDAR, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5.ALLU CHITTIVADU, S/0 LATE NUKAYYA, R/0 BAVAJIPETA® VANAPETA VILLAGE, KURUDU POST, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6.ALLU VERRANNA, S/0 LATE NUKAYYA, R/0 BAVAJIPETA@ VANAPETA VILLAGE, KURUDU POST, KOTABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 7.ALLU SIMHACHALAM, S/0 LATE NUKAYYA, R/0 BAVAJIPETA@ VANAPETA VILLAGE, KURUDU POST, KOTABOMMALIMANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondent no.2 to conduct a detail enquiry with regarding to illegal mutation done by Respondent no.4 and consequently declare the mutation with regarding to my Wet land property having an extent of Ac. 0.32 Cents, bearing Sy. No. 346-4B situated in Kurudu Village, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District., is illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same 2 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 praying that in the Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents no. 2&3 to dispose of my representations dated 30/04/2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.METTACHENDRASEKHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE r THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.17420 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 30.04.2025 was made to the authorities, 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. 2. Venkatesh^ held as follows: “...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. stale" issue or dispute, the If it is with reference to a "dead" or Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct ' (2019) 15 see 613 ■'mw 4 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." Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders 4. 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 that the petitioner’s 5. representation dated 30.04.2025 be considered by examining thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- NNAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// yir SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Amaravathi District. Guntur 2. The District Collector, Collectorate office Srikakulam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Cum Sub Collector, Tekkali Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahasildar, Kotabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5. One CC to Sri Metta Chendra Sekhar Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies at Srikakulam Town, Division, TF HIGH COURT •<* DATED:19/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 17420 OF 2025 ^0 2 SEP 2025 Jr ^sXytrent Swtion.^^ CO DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS