• APHC010404602025 K IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) v THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST^ - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20901 OF 2025 V..-- 05 RAOv^ V/ Between: 1. Sri Pasem Nagaiah, S/o. Kondaiah Aged about 65 years, Occ . Famar, R/o. Chakalakonda Village, Vinjamur Mandal S.P.S.R. Nellore District. ' 2. Sri Dammu Sreenivasulu,, S/o.Late Malakondiah, Occ . Farmar, R/o. Chakalakonda Village, Vinjamur Nellore District. Aged about 50 years, Mandal, S.P.S.R. 3. Sri Sanke David, S/o.Venkaaiah, Aged about 53 Faster/agriculturTst, R/o. S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 4. Smt. Vadde Kondamma, W/o. Pullaaiah, Farmar R/o. Chakal^pnda Village, Vinjamur District. 5. Chenupalli Sumalatha, C/o Sreenivasulu, R/o Duttalur Village and Mandal,S.P.s.R. Nellore District years, Occ . Chakalakonda Village, Vinjamur Mandal Aged about 55 years, Occ . Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore Age about. 45 years Farmar ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration District 3. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore Distr-ict its Principal Secretary Revenue Amaravati, Guntur District. , Mangalagiri, Guntur 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavli Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 5. The Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal S.P.S.R.Nellore District. - '• -'if?- ■# ...Respondents Petition under Article 226'df 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANADAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd and 5th respondents in complying the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 01.04.2024 per the representations dated 02.09.2024 and 29.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the'^Ord respondent to implement the order passed in BCW1/181/2017, dated 01.04.2024. v - Counsel for the Petitioners: DR G V RAVI v Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: as Proceeding No. APHC010404602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20901/2025 Between: 1.SR1 PASEM NAGAIAH, S/0. KONDAIAH , AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,OCC . FAMAR, R/0. CHAKALAKONDA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 2.SRI DAMMU SREENIVASULU,, S/0.LATE MALAKONDIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,OCC . FARMAR, R/0. CHAKALAKONDA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 3.SRI SANKE DAVID,, S/O.VENKAAIAH. AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,OCC CHAKALAKONDA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 4.SMT. VADDE KONDAMMA,, W/0. PULLAAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC . FARMAR R/0. CHAKALAKONDA VILLAGE, VINJAMUR MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. 5.CHENUPALLI SUMALATHA,, C/0 SREENIVASULU, AGE ABOUT. 45 YEARS FARMAR R/O DUTTALUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL,S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. FASTER/AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ...PETITIONER{S) AND <•> 2 TRR,J W.P. No.20901 of 2025 \ 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVLI TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5.THE TAHSILDAR, VINJAMUR MANDAL S.P.S.R.NELLORE 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANADAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd and 5th respondents in complying the order of the 2nd Respondent dated 01.04.2024 as per the representations dated 02.09.2024 and 29.08.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to implement the order passed in Proceeding No. BCW1/181/2017 , dated 01.04.2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.DR G V RAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 TRRJ W.P. No. 20901 of 2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT petition NIn 20901 of 2025 ORDER: Pithily this writ petition is filed on the grounds that a representation was made to the authorities via Meeseva, 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. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of 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, 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 direct "consideration" without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration wilt be without prejudice to any 3. 4 TRR,J W.P. No.20901 of 2025 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. However, the respondent authorities are directed that the petitioners representation dated 29.08.2024 must be considered by the respondents, examined 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 the order is received. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. 5. 6. no Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Mangalagiri, Guntur District 3. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavli Town and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 5. The Tahsildar, Vinjamur Mandal S.P.S.R.Neltore District. 6. One CC to DR G V Ravi Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to OP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT , BATED:07/08/2025 • ' ^ t -’s. Ah '4 , $ ORDER WP NO. 20901 OF 2025 5( 01 SEP 2025 K Co ^kNCyrrentSectioiLXl' DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS