f APHC010409952023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) “0 1 O V1 H’i 5l MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21187 OF 2023 . Between: 1. M Bheemalingaiah, S/o. M.Bandaiah, Hindu, Aged about 73 years, R/o. Veerabhadra Krupa PS61/U5/36 Tirumala Nagar, Behind Naregal Hospital Hospet, Bellary, Karnataka. 2. Mallikarjuna, S/o. Bandayya Swamy, Hindu, Aged about 70 years, R/o. Near Siddarameshwara temple, Goudru Oni, Dasara Nagenahalli, Bellary, Karnataka. 3. M.Shivalingaiah, S/o. M.Bandaiah, Hindu, Aged about 54 years, R/o. Behind Amaravathi, krupa Chandramouleshwara Temple, Hospet, Vijayanagara Karnataka. Kumara No.391, House ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuram District. 4. The Tahasildar, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapuram District. 5. Matdpathi Visveswaraiah, S/o. Late M.Bandaiah, Hindu, Aged about 71 years. Agriculturist, R/o. Gadekal Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Ananthaptu. District. 6. Matdpathi Sarvamangalamma, W/o Matdpathi Visveswaraiah, Hindu, Aged about 71 years, Agriculturist, R/o. Gadekal Village, Vidapanakal Mandal, Ananthapur 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 one in the nature of Wirt of Mandamus declaring the action, things and deeds of Respondents in not implementing the orders in L.Dis.No.D2/2512/2015 dated 18-09-2015 issued by 3rd Respondent by 4th Respondent as well as not considering the Petitioners representation dated 14-07-2023, which is illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against to the principles of natural justice, contra to the provisions of Record of Rights Act and in-violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondents especially 4th Respondent to implement the orders in L.Dis.No.D2/2512/2015 dated 18-09-2015 issued by 3rd Respondent by issuing E-Passbooks and Title Deeds by updating all revenue records in favour of the Petitioners for their respective extents as per partition list dated 24-11-2014. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to give access to the Petitioners to upload their Application for grant of E-Passbooks under form 6-A through their online official portal in respect of their lands in Survey Nos. 604, 108-H, 190-B, in an extent of 0.36, 0.68, 2.2%respectively each of the Petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: SRI VENKATASUBBAIAH V The Court made the following order: m THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No, 21187 of 2023 ORDER: Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that a representation was made to the Tahsildar, Vidapanakal, 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. 3. 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 2 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." 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 respondents are directed to consider the petitioners’ representation, examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 5. SIX 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, no 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, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anantapuram, Anantapuram District. m 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntakal, Anantapuram District. 4. The Tahasildar, Vidapanakal Mandal, Anantapuram District. 5. One CC to Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. One CC to Sri Venkatasubbaiah V, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED ;01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21187 OF 2023 ^ofand^% S ? 0 SEP 2025 mi Co ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS