APHC010400702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ .i WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20317 OF 2025 / v-’-i, Between: 1. M/s Key Stones Infra Ventures India Pvt. Ltd. Lingam Srinivas, Office at Plot No.22, Road No.6, Sector-1 Landmark, Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada, Satyanarayanapuram. 2. Lingam Srinivas, S/o Bapuji, Aged 53 years. Resident of Plot No.22 Road No.6, Sector-1 LOTUS Landmark, Ayodhya Nagar, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh. Rep., by its Director LOTUS ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Stamps and Registration Department, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati. 2. The District Registrar, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Achanta, West Godavari District. ...Respondents praying that in the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in not and 23.07.2025 for any registrations in Survey No. 156 considering the representation dated 18.07.2025 requesting the authorities not to entertain and 157 which is an extent of 50,941 Sq.Yards of Pedamiram Village, Kalla . Mandal of West Godavari District, by duly taking into consideration the aforementioned criminal case which is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to rules and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 2ND Respondent not to allow any further registrations in the aforementioned survey numbers to process with registration which are presented by the petitioners. 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. 2 to considered the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 18.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 and not to entertain any registrations in Survey No. 156 and 157 which is an extent of 50,941 Sq.Yards of Pedamiram Village, Kalla Mandal of West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MUDE SAI KUMAR NAIK Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20317 of 2025 ORDER: Pithily, this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that representations were made to the authorities, but they were not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representations, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of 2. India vs P. Venkatesh reported in (2019) 15 SCC 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 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. 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 reconsideration, if the Court to tribunal deciding to 2 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 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. 4. However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners’ representations dated 18.07.2025 and 23.07.2025, examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Stamps And Registration Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati. 2. The District Registrar, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. 3. The Sub-Registrar, Achanta, West Godavari District. 4. One CC to Sri. Mude Sai Kumar Naik Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Registration and Stamps, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies // gsc HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20317 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS