APHC010405672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20878 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Muttavarapu Ratna Bayamma, W/o Muttavarapu Jayaraju, Aged about 86 years, R/o H. No. 3-43, Koppaka Village, Godavari District now Eluru District. Pedavegi Mandal, West ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari now Eluru District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddy Gudem Mandal West Godavari now Eluru District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kamavarupu Kota Mandal West Godavari now Eluru District. 5. Adapa Threemurthulu, S/o Mandeswarara Rao, Aged 63 years, Occ Agriculturist, Tadkalapudi Village, Kamavarapu Kota Mandal Eluru, West Godavari 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 a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4, in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 for deletion of name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records and incorporate the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy. No. RS. No. 195/3 an extent of Ac. 5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the express provisions of the The Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Consequently, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 and delete the name of the 5th respondent by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. RS. No. 195/3 an extent of Ac. 5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated: 17.02.2025 and delete the name of the 5*^ respondent by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. RS. No. 195/3 an extent of Ac. 5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru, and grant such other relief as may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5:— The Court made the following order: APHC010405672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20878/2025 Between: 1.MUTTAVARAPU RATNA BAYAMMA, W/0 MUTTAVARAPU JAYARAJU, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/0 H. NO. 3-43, KOPPAKA VILLAGE, PEDAVEGI MANUAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT NOW ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI NOW ELURU DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDY GUDEM MANUAL WEST GODAVARI NOW ELURU DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KAMAVARUPU KOTA MANDAL WEST GODAVARI NOW ELURU DISTRICT. 5.ADAPA THREEMURTHULU, S/0 MANDESWARARA RAO, AGED 63 OCC AGRICULTURIST, TADKALAPUDI VILLAGE, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI YEARS KAMAVARAPU KOTA MANDAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): V: 2 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 in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4, in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 for deletion of name of the 5th respondent in the revenue records and incorporate the name of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.RS.No.195/3 an extent of Ac.5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the express provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. Consequently, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2025 and delete the name of the 5th respondent by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.RS.No.195/3 an extent of Ac.5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru, 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 respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated: 17.02.2025 and delete the name of the 5*'^ respondent by incorporating the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy.No.RS.No.195/3an extent of Ac. 5.00 Cents situated at Tadikalapudi Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari now Eluru, and grant Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE ■ r 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20878 of 2025 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. 2. 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 increasingiy 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 3. 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 will be without prejudice to any 4 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 are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 17.02.2025 must be considered by the respondents. examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of the order is received. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- Wl. SRINIVAS assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// FFICER SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru, West Godavari now Eluru District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddy Gudem Mandal West Godavari now Eluru District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kamavarupu Kota Mandal West Godavari now Eluru District. 5. One CC to Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb m‘fi-p I % HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 20878 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS \