V APHCOI 0424692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21634 OF 2025 Between: 1. Doddakula Satyanarayana, Age 52 yrs S/o late Ganganna, R/o D.No.3- 323/A, Metta Veedhi, Kamayyapalem, Jeelugumilli West Godavari District. 2. Doddakula Mangaraju, Age 37yrs S/o Late Ramayya @ Ramulu, R/o West Kamayyapalem, Jeelugumilli, D.NO.3-23, Metta Veedhi, Godavari District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Polavaram. 4. The Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Jeelugumilli. 5. Neelapala Venkayamma, Age 65yrs, W/o Late Durga Rao, R/o Kamayyapalem, Jeelugumilli Mandal Eluru District. Jangareddygudem Division ...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 order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not taking our complaint against mutation of land records in the name of 5th respondent an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents in R.S.No.35/5B extent of Ac.4.00Cents situated in an Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumifli Mandal, Eluru District of 1st Petitioner and an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents out of an extent of Ac.4.00 Cents in R.S.N0.35/5B situated in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumitli Mandal, Eluru District of 2nd petitioner and proceeding with the letter submitted by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the Article 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to mutate the land records in the name of 5th respondent without hearing the objections raised by the petitioners. 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 4th respondent not to mutate the land in the name of 5th respondent an extent of Ac.1.00 Cents in R.S.No.35/5B an extent of Ac.4.00Cents situated in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 1st Petitioner and an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents out of an extent of Ac.4.00 Cents in R.S.No.35/5B situated in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 2nd petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition . Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010424692025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21634/2025 01^:0 [3330] Between: 1 DODDAKULA SATYANARAYANA, AGE 52YRS METTA WEST S/0 LATE VEEDHl, GODAVARI GANGANNA. R/0 D.N0.3-323/A. KAMAYYAPALEM.JEELUGUMILLI DISTRICT. 2 DODDAKULA MANGARAJU, AGE 37YRS R/O D.NO.3-23, METTA VEEDHl, WEST GODAVARI S/0 LATE RAMAYYA @ RAMULU KAMAYYAPALEM, JEELUGUMILLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND REP BY ITS DEPARTMENT. GUNTUR 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRI.SECRETARY, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI. AMARAVATI DISTRICT. 2. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT. ELURU 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM DIVISION, POLAVARAM. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, JEELUGUMILLI MANDAL JEELUGUMILLI. 5 NEELAPALA VENKAYAMMA, AGE 65YRS W/0 LATE DURGA R/O KAMAYYAPALEM. JEELUGUMILLI MANDAL REVENUE RAO. ELURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in not taking our complaint against mutation of the name of 5th respondent an extent of Ac. 1.00 extent of Ac.4.00Cents situated in in land records in Cents in R.S.No.35/5B an Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 1st Petitioner and an extent of Ac.I.OOCents out of an extent of Ac.4.00 Village, R.S.N0.35/5B situated in Kamayyapalem Cents in . Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 2nd petitioner and proceeding with the letter submitted by the 5th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and against the Article 14,21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to mutate the land records V 2 in the name of 5th respondent without hearing the objections raised by the petitioners, and 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 pleased to direct the 4th respondent not to mutate the land in the name of 5th respondent an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents in R.S.No.35/5B an extent of Ac.4.00Cents situated in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 1st Petitioner and an extent of Ac.I.OOCents out of an extent of Ac.4.00 Cents in R.S.N0.35/5B situated in Kamayyapalem Village, Jeelugumilli Mandal, Eluru District of 2nd petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass s Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.J RAVI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 3 I? THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21634 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithlly this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 20.08.2025 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh^ held as follows: 2. “...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. stale" issue or dispute, the If it is with reference to a "dead" or 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 direct "consideration" without itself make it clear that such consideration will be tribunal deciding to examining the merits, it should without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect. court 4. Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions but orders do more disservice than result in quick or easy such service to the cause of justice. 5, However, the respondents representation dated 20.08.2025 be are directed that the petitioners considered by examining thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the entire process will be six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of completed within 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 shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any. Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The PrI. Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. » 2. The District Collector, Eluru District, Eluru. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem Division Polavaram. 4. The Tahsildar, Jeelugumilli Mandal Jeelugumilli. 5. One CC to Sri. J Ravi Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:21/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21634 OF 2025 gT 17 SEP 2025 jl) ^s^rrent SectiwjX*/ DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS