S AR^103822720.25 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) T \ TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20565 OF 2025 X Between: Muccheli Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o. Mohanrami Reddy, aged about 52 years, R/o. 1-10, Chiguruwada notrthkandrika, Tirupati (Rural), Tirupati, Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. The District Collector, Tirupati (Rural), Tirupati, Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati The Tahasildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. The VRO, Village Secretariat, Chiguruwada, Tirupati Rural Mandal Tirupati Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 writ/s or order/s one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not considering the representation of > and unconstitutional and the petitioner dated.25-06-202 5 is illegal arbitrary against to the principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner, take steps to protect the land admeasuring in SY No. 382/2 of Chiguruwada Village, I for an extent of AC/ 3.00 Cents North Kandriga. / lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in direct the respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the Petitio^ dated. 25- 06-2025 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. X Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5; GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: f APHC010382272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] r TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20565 of 2025 Between: 1.MUCCHELI KIRAN KUMAR REDDY, S/0. MOHANRAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NOTRTHKANDRIKA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT. R/0. 1-10, CHIGURUWADA TIRUPATI (RURAL), TIRUPATI, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 1. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI (RURAL), TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, PRESENT TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI RURAL MAN DAL, TIRUPATI 4.THE TAHASILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANUAL, TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT. PRESENT TIRUPATI 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 writ/s or order/s one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated.25-06-202 5 is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and against to the principles of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner, take steps to protect the land admeasuring for an extent of AC. 3.00 Cents in SY No. 382/2 of Chiguruwada Village, North Kandrigaand to pass such 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 1 M 3 ORDER: Pithily, this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that a representation 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. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 613 held that: 2. "This ‘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 no 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, 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. If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or 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 3. reconsideration. 4 relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does expressly say so, that would be the legal position not 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 dis-service than service to the cause of justice. 5. However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's representation, examine thoroughly and issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date the order is received. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. As a sequel thereto. Interlocutory Applications shall stand closed. no pending, if any Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHAR! ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFBdER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati (Rural), Tirupati, Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati 4. The Tahasildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District. 5. The VRO, Village Secretariat, Chiguruwada, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati Chittoor district. Present Tirupati District 6. One CC to Sri Venkata Subbaiah Pogula, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ORDER WP No.20565 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS