A APHC010417322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) % WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21983 OF 2025 Between: 1. H Chinna Anjinayya, S/o. H. Srinivasulu, aged about 35 years, R/o.D.No. 2-6/1, Manekurthi Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. H. Thirumala, S/o. H. Mallayya, aged about 55 years, R/o.D.No. 2-6/2, Manekurthi Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. B. Devendra, S/o. B. Eranna, Aged about 55 years, R/o. D.No. 2/25, Manekurthi Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District. 4. The Tahsildar, Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. 5. S Prasanna Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late Devi Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Manekurthi Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. 6. S Ram Prasad Reddy, S/o. Late Devi Reddy, Aged about 53 years, R/o. Manekurthi Aluru Mandal, Kurnool 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, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in not considering the petitioners representation dated 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 seeking to direction to continue the easementary right for passing the cart track to the petitioners lands through the land in S.No. 55 of Manekurthi Village, Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District belongs to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to proceed with the lands of unofficial respondents. r 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 respondent to consider the directing the respondent to consider the representation dated 07.07.2025 & 08.07.2025 by directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to proceed their lands through the lands in S.No. 55 of Manekurthi Village, Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: — The Court made the following order: APHC010417322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21983/2025 [3330] r Between: 1.H CHINNAANJINAYYA, S/O. H. SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 2-6/1, MANEKURTHI ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2.H. THIRUMALA,, S/O. H. MALLAYYA. YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 2-6/2, MANEKURTHI ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3 B DEVENDRA,, S/O. B. ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. D.NO. 2/25, MANEKURTHI ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 55 ...PETITIONER(S) AND REP. BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KURNOOL. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5 S PRASANNA KUMAR REDDY, S/O. LATE DEVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/0. MANEKURTHI ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6 S RAM PRASAD REDDY, S/O. LATE DEVI REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/0. MANEKURTHI ALURU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. KURNOOL 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 in not considering the petitioners representation dated 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 seeking to direction to continue the easementary right for passing the cart track to the petitioners lands through the land in S.No. 55 of Manekurthi Village, Aluru Mandal, Kurnooi District belongs to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and 2 contrary to law and consequently directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to proceed with the lands of unofficial respondents 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 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21983 of 2025 fT- r ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representations dated 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 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. Venkateshi' 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, 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, stale" issue or dispute, the 3. \ If it is with reference to a "dead" or I 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 representations 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 petitioners representations dated 07.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 be considered by examining thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. 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/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, Kurnool District. The Tahsildar, Aluru Mandal, Kurnool District. One CC to Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. TF HIGH COURT DATED:20/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21983 OF 2025 5 06 SEP 2025 " DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS