r APHC010427082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WM MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22746 OF 2025 Between: Resapu Laxmana Reddy, S/o Late Appala Reddy, Aged 80 years, Occ Ex-Servicemen, R/o. D.No.52-7-16, Resapuvanupalem, Near Swarna Visakhapatnam Urban, Visakhapatnam Bharathi Indoor Stadium District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Government, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam Revenue Division, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Thasildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 respondents in not considering petitioners repeated appiications/petitions last one dated 30.06.2025 submitted for allotment of 5 acres of government waste (poramboke) land for cultivation under the ex-servicemen quota preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any other suitable location within Visakhapatnam District to sustain his livelihood in old age, given severe financial hardship, as illegal, irregular, irrational, amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on them and in violation of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allot of 5 acres of government waste (poramboke) land under the ex-servicemen quota in favour of petitioner preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any other suitable location within Visakhapatnam District. 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 and dispose of petitioner’s representation dated 30.06.2025 by allotting 5 acres of government waste land under the ex- servicemen quota, preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any suitable location in Visakhapatnam District, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 743 (1963) and Condition No. 4 of the 1977 allotment order, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel forth© Petitioner: M/S TANUJA DUNGI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010427082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ u [3330] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22746/2025 Between: 1.RESAPU LAXMANA REDDY, S/0 LATE APPALA REDDY, AGED 80 YEARS, OCC EX-SERVICE MEN, R/0. D.NO.52-7- 16, RESAPUVANUPALEM, INDOOR STADIUM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. NEAR SWARNA BHARATHI VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHEEMUNIPATNAM REVENUE DIVISION, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5.THE THASILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANUAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS more declaring the action of respondents in not considering petitioners repeated applications/petitions last one dated 30.06.2025 submitted for allotment of 5 acres of government waste (poramboke) land for cultivation under the ex-servicemen quota preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any other suitable location within Visakhapatnam District to sustain his livelihood in old age, given severe financial hardship, as illegal, irregular, irrational, amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on them and in violation of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and r 2 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to allot of 5 acres of government waste (poramboke) land under the ex-servicemen quota in favour of petitioner preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any other suitable location within Visakhapatnam District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of petitioner’s representation dated 30.06.2025 by allotting 5 acres of government waste land under the ex- servicemen quota, preferably in Survey No. 1, Annavaram Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, or any suitable location in Visakhapatnam District, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No. 743 (1963) and Condition No. 4 of the 1977 allotment order, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.TANUJA DUNGI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE praying that in the 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22746 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily, this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 30.06.2025 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. 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 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 4. 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 representation dated 30.06.2025 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 no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand-closed. Sd/- U SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Revenue Department 'i 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Government of Andhra Revenue Department, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh, Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam District at Visakhapatnam. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bheemunipatnam Revenue Division Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5. The Thasildar, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. 6. One CC to Sri. Tanuja Dungi, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. AL j. HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22746 OF 2025 5 tl SEP 2025 B. ^ ^ Current lection DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS