4"' APHC010410982025 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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21016 OF 2025 Between: Makkineni Srinivasa Babu, S/o Sambasiva Rao, Aged About 57 years, Occ; Business, R/o H.No 8-3-222/15/403/C-49/50, Madhuranagar, Hyderabad - 500 038, Telangana State. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District SPSR Neltore. 3. The Tahsildar, Marripadu Mandalam, Sri PottiSriramulu Nellore 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the inaction of the respondents more particularly 3rd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018, for removal of online revenue records thereby deleting the lands of the petitioner from Sec.22A prohibitory list of Registration Act, in respect of petitioners land in Sy.No. 976 of an extent of Ac. 6.51 cts in PonguruMajaraKandriga, Korumetta, Marripadu to [ Mandalm, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, against to law and procedure and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct to the dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018 in accordance with law. 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 to delete the petitioners' land situated in in Sy.No. 976 of an extent of Ac. 6.51 cts in PonguruMajaraKa ndriga, Korumetta, Marripadu Mandalm, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District from prohibitory list of properties maintained under Sec. 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 in pursuance to the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANJANEYA SARMA.M Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010410982025 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: 21016/2025 Between: 1.MAKKINENI SRINIVASA BABU, S/0 SAMBASIVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,OCC BUSINESS R/0 H.NO 8-3-222/15/403/C- 49/50, MADHURANAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500 038, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUEDEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI POTTISRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT SPSR NELLORE. 3.THETAHSILDAR, MARRIPADU MANDALAM, SRI POTTISRIRAMULU 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 an appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the inaction of the respondents more particularly 3RD respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018, for removal of online revenue records thereby deleting the lands of the petitioner from Sec.22A prohibitory list of Registration Act, in respect of petitioners land in Sy.No. 976 2 of an extent of Ac. 6.51 cts in PonguruMajaraKandriga, Korumetta, Marripadu Mandalm, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, against to law and Constitution representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018 in accordance with law to 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 to delete the petitioners' land situated in in Sy.No. 976 of an extent of Ac. 6.51 cts in PonguruMajaraKa ndriga, Marripadu Mandalm, Sri Potti Sriramulu Nellore District from prohibitory list of properties maintained under Sec. 22A of the Registration Act, 1908 in pursuance to the representation of the petitioner dated 12.11.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; procedure and violative of Articles, 14, 21 and 300-Aof the of India and consequently direct to the dispose of the 1 Korumetta 1.ANJANEYA SARMA.M Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO r WRIT PETITION NO. 21016 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. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs 2. 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 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. 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 disservice than service to the cause of justice. 4. more However, the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2018 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. 5. 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/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY^iSTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To. 1. The Principal Secretary to Revenue Department Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Sri PottiSriramulu Nellore District SPSR The Tahsildar, Marripadu Mandalam, Sri PottiSriramulu Nellore District. One CC to Sri Anjaneya Sarma M Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies Secretariat, 2. Nellore. 3. 4. 5. 6. TF HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2025 I 0 2 SEP 2025 I ^ . Current Section , ^ ORDER WP NO. 21016 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS