APHC010416412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH- AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGuIlT TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21263 OF 2025 0 ■■ -i/f i( Between: P Rajani, W/o. D. Anil Kumar, Aged about 48 years, R/o. pallam Village and post, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Tirupati Distrct, Tirupati 3. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not Considering and passing orders on petitioner Mee seva Application vide No. TTA012500127119, Dt. 10.02.2025, Wherein the Petitioner sought for deletion of the land admeasuring an extant of Ac.0.3 72 Cents in SY.no.52/2A, 52/2B of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District from the Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908 is wholly bad, improper, unjust and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on them 4- and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution Consequently direct the 2nd respondents to Consider the the petitioner vide Application No. TTA012500127119, deletion of the land admeasuring an extant of Ac.0.3 72 Cents in SY 52/2B of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908 forthwith without any more delay. lA NO: 1 OF 20?/^ 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 2nd Respondent to consider Petitioner’s Meeseva Application vide No. TTA012500127119 Wherein the Petitioner sought for deletion of the land of Ac.0.3 y. Cents in SY.no.52/2A. 52/2B of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District from the Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GALLA SUDARSANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: of India and application filed by Dt.10.02.2025, for .no.52/2A, District from the and pass appropriate orders Dt. 10.02.2025, admeasuring an extant on RAO APHC010416412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21263/2025 Between: 1.P RAJANI, , W/0. D. ANIL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/0. PALLAM VILLAGE AND POST, YERPEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1 .THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, • AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRCT, TIRUPATI 3.THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI URBAN MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT REVENUE DEPARTMENT. A.P. ...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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not Considering and passing orders on petitioner Mee seva Application vide No. TTA012500127119, Dt. 10.02.2025, Wherein the Petitioner sought for deletion of the land admeasuring an extant of Ac.0.3 1/2 Cents in SY.no.52/2A,52/2B of Mangalam Viltage, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District from the Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908 is wholly bad, improper, unjust and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on them and also violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 2nd respondents to Consider the application filed by the petitioner vide Application No. TTA012500127119. Dt.10.02.2025, for deletion of the land admeasuring an extant of Ac.0.3 1/2 Cents in SY.no.52/2A,52/2B of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District from the Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908 forthwith without any more delay 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 pleased to direct 2nd Respondent to 2 consider and pass appropriate orders on Application vide No. TTA012500127119, Dt. 10.02.2025, Wherein the Petitioner sought for deletion of the land admeasuring an extant of Ac.0.3 1/2 Cents in SY.no.52/2A,52/2B of Mangalam Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District from the Prohibitory list under section 22A of the Registration act 1908 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE Petitioner’s Meeseva THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21263 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the grounds that an application vide application N0.TTAOI2500127119 was made to the authorities via Meeseva, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the application, 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...” This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities. 3. 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 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." 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. 4. 5. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioner's application vide application N0.TTAOI2500127119 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 no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Coliector, Tirupati Distrct, Tirupati 3. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Tirupati District/ 4. One CC to Sri Galla Sudarsana Rao, Advocate [OPUC]-^ 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:12/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21263 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS