APHC010433172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22574/2025 Between: 1. VAJJA SYAMALAMMA, W/O LATE RAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O VAJJAVARI KANDRIGA, BERI KUPPAM POST NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI CAPITAL CITY GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRI KALAHASTHI REVENUE DIVISION SRI KALAHASTHI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGALAPURAM MANDAL, NAGALAPURAM TIRUPATI 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the report submitted by the Village Surveyor, dated 3-4-2025 and the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 21-6-2025 for notifying the lands in Sy.No.353/8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 to an extent of Ac.0.10, 0.17, 0.24, 0.32, 0.24, 0.34, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively (Total Ac.2.50 Cts) in Kadivedu Revenue Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District, as free hold lands in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, and the consequential G.O. Ms. No. 23 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 19-1-2024 of the 1st Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the report submitted by the Village Surveyor 2 on 3-4-2025 and the representation dated 21-6-2025 by notifying Sy.No.353/8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 to an extent of Ac.0.10, 0.17, 0.24, 0.32, 0.24, 0.34, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively (Total Ac.2.50 Cts) in Kadivedu Revenue Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District, as free hold lands in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, and the consequential G.O.Ms. No.23 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 19-1-2024 of the 1st Respondent, and to pass such 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 consider the report dated 3-4-2025 of Village Surveyor and the representation dated 21-6- 2025 for notifying the lands in Sy.No.353/8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 to an extent of Ac.0.10, 0.17, 0.24, 0.32, 0.24, 0.34, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively (Total Ac.2.50 Cts) in Kadivedu Revenue Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District, as free hold lands in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and the consequential G.O.Ms. No.23 Revenue (Lands- I) Department dated 19-1-2024 of the 1st Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 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. 22574 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the report submitted by the Village Surveyor, dated 3-4-2025 and the representation submitted by the Petitioner on 21-6-2025 for notifying the lands in Sy.No.353/8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 to an extent of Ac.0.10, 0.17, 0.24, 0.32, 0.24, 0.34, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively (Total Ac.2.50 Cts) in Kadivedu Revenue Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District, as free hold lands in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, and the consequential G.O. Ms. No. 23 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 19-1-2024 of the 1st Respondent, as arbitrary, illegal, in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the report submitted by the Village Surveyor on 3-4-2025 and the representation dated 21-6-2025 by notifying Sy.No.353/8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 to an extent of Ac.0.10, 0.17, 0.24, 0.32, 0.24, 0.34, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.33 respectively (Total Ac.2.50 Cts) in Kadivedu Revenue Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Tirupati District, as free hold lands in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, and the consequential G.O.Ms. No.23 Revenue (Lands-I) Department dated 19-1-2024 of the 1st Respondent and to 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. 4 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 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. 5 6. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 21.06.2025, must be considered by the respondents, examined thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision given to the petitioner. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within eight 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 : 29.08.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:22574 of 2025 Date : 29.08.2025 SPP