<1 \ APHC010381992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21577 OF 2025 Between: 1. Pitta Venkateswarlu, S/o Paidi Talli, aged about 53 years, R/o Kakarapalli Village, Patipalli Post, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 2. Pitta Paidikonda, W/o Maridayya, aged about 56 years, Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 3. Pitta Appalakonda, W/o Govinda Reddy, aged about 42 years, R/o Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 4. Pitta Manga Reddy, S/o Paidi Talli, aged about 47 Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 5. Pitta Nagaraju, S/o Paiditalli, aged about 54 years, R/o Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District. 6. Yenneti Appalaraju, S/o Appa Rao (Pittavanipalem) aged about 38 years, Pittavaripalem Village, Padagantyad Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. R/o years, R/o 7. Vempaada Chittaiah, S/o Guraiah, Devada Village, aged about 64 years, R/o Kakarapalli Village, Padagantyad Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 8. Pitta Durgarao, S/o Paiditalli, R/o Kakarapalli Village, aged about 59 years, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat,Amaravati. 2. The District Collector, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. 3. The Tahsildhar, Munagapaka, Munagapaka Mandal Anakapalli District. ...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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents particularly the 3 respondent in considering the petitioners representation dated 3.5.2025 and issuing the D-Form Patta/DKT for the lands as an extent of Ac 5.00 Cents in Sy. No. 329/2 and 112, Ac 0.47 Cents in Sy. No. 365/4 and 112, Ac 0.84 Cents in Sy. No. 381/1 and 112, Ac 1.20 Cents in Sy.No.112, Ac 0.80 Cents in Sy.No.112, Ac.0.60 Cents in Sy.No.112 Ac 0.40 Cents and Ac 1.40 Cents in Sy.No.112 as total admeasuring an extent of Ac 11.00 Cents to the petitioners at Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District is arbitrary illegal and violation of article, 14 and 300-A of the constitution of India and against to the procedure contemplated under law and consequently direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation dt 3.5.2025. rd lA 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 to direct the respondents particularly the 3'^'^ respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dt: 3.5.2025 submitted the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: w- APHC010381992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21577/2025 Between: 1. PITTA VENKATESWARLU, S/0 PAIDI TALLI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE, PATIPALLI POST, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2.PITTA PAIDIKONDA, , W/0 MARIDAYYA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE. MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. W/0 GOVINDA REDDY, AGED R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE. 3.PITTA APPALAKONDA ABOUT 42 YEARS. MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4.PITTA MANGA REDDY,, S/0 PAIDI TALLI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5.PITTA NAGARAJU, , S/0 PAIDITALLI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, MANDAL. ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6.YENNETI APPALARAJU,, S/0 APPA RAO (PITTAVANIPALEM) AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PITTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, PADAGANTYAD MANDAL. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7.VEMPAADA CHITTAIAH, , S/0 GURAIAH, DEVADA VILLAGE, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE, PADAGANTYAD MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8.PITTA DURGARAO, S/0 PAIDITALLI. R/0 KAKARAPALLI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. MUNAGAPAKA j > R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE. MUNAGAPAKA R/0 KAKARAPALLI VILLAGE, MUNAGAPAKA VILLAGE MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,AMARAVATI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3.THE TAHSILDHAR, MUNAGAPAKA, MUNAGAPAKA MANDAL ANAKAPALLI 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 2 m Court may be pleased topleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents particularly the 3RD respondent in considering the petitioners representation dated 3.5.2025 and issuinq the D-Form Patta/DKT for the lands as an extent of Ac 5.00 Cents in Sy. No. 329/2 and 112, Ac 0.47 Cents in Sy. No. 365/4 and 112 Ac 0.84 Cents in Sy. No. 381/1 and 112, Ac 1.20 Cents in Sy.No. II2’, Ac 0.80 Cents in Sy.No. 112, Ac.0.60 Cents in Sy.No. 112 Ac 0.40 Cents ^ Sy.No. 112 as total admeasuring an extent of Ac 11.00 Cents to the petitioners at Kakarapalli Village, Munagapaka Mandal, Anakapalli District is arbitrary illegal and violation of article, 141 and 300-A of the constitution of India and against to the procedure contemplated under law and consequently direct the respondents pass appropriate orders on the representation dt 3 5 2025 and lA NO: 1 OF 2025 to pass 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 direct the respondents particularly the 3RD respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dt: 3.5.2025 submitted the petitioners and Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.VELAGANI NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE pass 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21577 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 03.05.2025 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. 2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. 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...” 3. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities 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. I If it is with reference to a "dead \ I or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct (2019) 15 see 613 4 consideration or reconsideration. If the direct "consideration" without itself make it clear that such consideration will be Court to tribunal deciding to examining the merits, it should 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. 5. However, the respondents representation dated 03.05.2025 be thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and the petitioners. It goes without completed within six (06) weeks from the date this order. are directed that the petitioners’ considered by examining communicate the decision to saying that the entire process will be of receipt of a copy of 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any, Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. 3. The Tahsildhar, Munagapaka, Munagapaka Mandal District. 4. One CC to Sri Velagani Narasimhulu, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies. Anakapalli ssb 4» HIGH COURT DATED:18/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 21577 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS