4 APHC010394962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20388 OF 2025 Between: N Sandhiya, W/o N. Nambika Raj, Aged about 31 years. Residing at D.No. 8- 27 Papichettipalli hw, Papichettipalli, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District - 517132 ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor district. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor 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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 interfering with the petitioner property despite issued house site patta Ac. 0.02 Cents in respect of survey no. 171 situated in vasanthapuram revenue village, Gudipala mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Article 300A and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently % direct the respondent no.4 to consider my representation dt.06-05-2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. 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 direct the respondent no.4 to consider my representation dt.06-05-2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.S.BANU PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010394962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3330] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20388/2025 Between: 1.N SANDHIYA, W/0 N. NAMBIKA RAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO. 8-27 PAPICHETTIPALLI HW, PAPICHETTIPALLI, DISTRICT-517132 GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 interfering with the petitioner property despite issued house site patta Ac.0.02 Cents in respect of survey No. 171 situated in Vasanthapuram revenue village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Article 300-A and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondent No.4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dt.06-05- 2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass 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 respondent No.4 to consider the 2 petitioner’s representation dt.06-05-2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M.S.BANU PRASAD RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20388 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 in interfering with the petitioner’s property despite issued house site patta Ac.0.02 cents in respect of survey No. 171 situated in Vasanthapuram revenue village, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the Article 300-A and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dt. 06.05.2025 and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. ” Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that a 2. 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. 3. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCO 613 held that: 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 service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again 'Vr 4 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 tho fact that a Court to authoritios, 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 4. If it is with reference to a "dead" or Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct 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." 5. 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. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2025 must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without 6. f 5 saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date the order is received. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. SD/- M NAGANIMA i assistant registrar i 3 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Velagapudi, 1. The Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Chittoor district. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to Sri M S Banu Prasad Rao Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies 6. TF HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20388 OF 2025 1 3 AUG 2025 O DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS