APHC010413232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21608 OF 207*; RAO Between: Nagulapalli Ramesh, S/o Late Nagulapalli Ramulu Occ; Employee, R/o D.No.53-2-22, ‘ R.T.C Bus Complex, Rajaveedhi, Maddilapalem Aged about 37 years Sri Raja Rajeswari Residency, Beside Visakhapatnam. ...PETITIONER AND . The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 5. Aiiu Udaya Bhaskara Rao, S/o Late Appala Swamy, Aged about 56 years, Occ Employee in VIZAG Steel Plant, R/o. Q.No.344/A, Sector- VI, LIkkunagaram, Visakhapatnam. Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the cumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court ®9sed to issue Writ order or direction may be more particularly one in the nature of of Mandamus questioning the inaction of the Respondent in considering Writ f" r the Representation s dt.20-02-2025 and dt.28-02-2025 by the Respondent No.2 to 4 to take steps against the Respondent No.5 and his Vendor for cancellation of assigned Patta granted to the Vendor of the Respondent No.5 Under the Provisions of A.P Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Artilce-14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to take steps and consider the Representations dt.20-02-2025 and dt.28-02-2025 submitted to the Respondent No.2 and 3 to take steps against the Respondent No.5 and his Vendor for cancellation of assigned Patta granted to the Vendor of the Respondent No.5 Under the Provisions of A.P Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977. 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 Consider the Representations dt.20-02-2025 and dt.28-02-2025 pending disposal of the above Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5:— The Court made the following order: 'v " APHC010413232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21608/?n9f^ [3330] RAO Between: 1.NAGULAPALLI RAMESH,, S/0 LATE NAGULAPALLI AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE 22, SRI RAJA RAJESWARI RESIDENCY COMPLEX, RAJAVEEDHI VISAKHAPATNAM. RAMULU, R/0 D.NO.53-2- BESIDE R.T.C BUS MADDILAPALEM ...PETITIONER AND ^ STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINOIPAI SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR VISAKHAPATNAM. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. gajuwaka man dal, VISAKHAPATNAM.''®'""'^' LLKKUNAGARAM. VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM in Constitution ^^ndTprayingthat .n he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the Hiah s»iliilps=s;s ^''bitrary and violation of Artilce-14 21 and 3nn A nf The Constitutbn of India and consequently d,'ec,'"e RespAdentt to consider the Representations dt.20-02-2025 and dt 28 02-2025 submitted to the Respondent No 2 and n to tfi? , 2 P Assigned Lands (Prohibitionof Transfers) Act, lA NO: 1 OF 2n9f; Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in suppor/oHhe petition the Consider the^R ® Respondents to Consider the Representations dt.20-02-2025 and dt 28-02-2025 pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.TANDASA RADHA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S)' 1.GP FOR REVENUE % THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21608 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representations dated 20.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 was made to the authorities, but it was 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. 2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh^ held as follows: “...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 Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct (2019) 15 see 613 4 I 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. 5. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioner’s representations dated 20.02.2025 and 28.02.2025 be considered by examining thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. no As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/-V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //true copy// SECTION OFFICER To, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 1. The Principal Secretary Pradesh, Secretariat, ^, 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 5. One CC to M/s.Tandasa Radha Rani, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. ssb . N HIGH COURT DATED:18/08/2025 ORDER WP No. 21608 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS