APHC010425092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22105/2025 Between: 1. MANCHA LOKESWARAIAH, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. TANGUTUR VILLAGE, NANDALURU MANDAL, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMPET REVENUE DIVISION, RAJAMPET, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR NANDALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, TANGUTURU VILLAGE, NANDALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly respondent No.4 on petitioner’s representation dated 19.06.2025 submitted for restoration of Record of Rights concerned to his landed property admeasuring Ac.1.11 cents covered Sy.No.85-2 of Tanguturu Revenue Village, Nandalur Mandal of Annamayya (erstwhile YSR Kadapa) District in web land record of rights being maintained by the respondents as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred to them under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently 2 direct the respondents to restore his said land in webland records of rights by mutating the petitioner’s name therein and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IA 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 initiate necessary action on petitioner’s representation dated: 19.06.2025 submitted for restoration of record of rights connected to his landed property of Ac.1.11 cents covered Sy. No: 85-2 of Tanguturu Revenue Village, Nandalur Mandal of Annamayya (erstwhile YSR Kadapa) District, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 22105 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly respondent No.4 on petitioner’s representation dated 19.06.2025 submitted for restoration of Record of Rights concerned to his landed property admeasuring Ac.1.11 cents covered Sy.No.85-2 of Tanguturu Revenue Village, Nandalur Mandal of Annamayya (erstwhile YSR Kadapa) District in web land record of rights being maintained by the respondents as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred to them under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and Rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore his said land in webland records of rights by mutating the petitioner’s name therein and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground 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. 3. 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 4 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. 4. 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 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." 5. 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. 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 19.06.2025, must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without 5 saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of the order is received. 7. 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. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 21.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:22105 of 2025 Date : 21.08.2025 SPP