A APHC010435442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) o o 1:?‘ S-. s- r^r, 0 ^Hl- FRIDAY.THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR R>!^ WRIT PETITION NO: 22203 OF 2025 Between: 1. S. Prakasa Naidu, S/o. Seshama Naidu, Age 72 years, R/o. D.No.2- Kondamitta Street, Srikalahasti Town and Mandal, Tirupati 800 District. 2. Y.Rajaiah Naidu, S/o. Krishnama Naidu, Age 71 years, R/o. 1-56, B.N.Kandriga Village and Mandal, Tirupati District. 3. S.Vijaya Babu, S/o. Venkataramana Naidu, Age 62 years, R/o. 6-1-70/DI, K.T.Road, Sripuram Colony, Tirupati District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 4. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati. — 5. Joint Collector -Cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupati District, Tirupati. 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurpet, Tirupati District. 7. The Tahsildar, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Tirupati District. r ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the circumstances stated i pleased to issue any writ Mandamus, declaring the action Constitution of India praying that in the in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of J of the respondents in not mutating the records with respect to the land names of the petitioners in the revenue admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6.00 ’’n Sy. No. 177/2P of Kamanambedu Village, B.N. Kandriga Mandal, Tirupati District, despite the dated 11.06.2025, 17.02.2025 representations and 20.04.2015 addressed by the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutionalJ, and violative of Articles 14, 21, and 300- A of the Constitution of India Consequently direct the respondents herein mutate the names of the petitioners in the revenue records with said lands, by considering the to respect to the representations dated 11.06.2025, 17.02.2025 and 20.04.2015. jA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated direct th ^''9^ Court may be pleased to rect the respondents herein to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 11,06.2025. 17.02.2025 and 20.04.2015 for mutation of the the petitioners in the revenue records with admeasuring an extent of Ac names of respect to the subject land 6.00 cents in Sy. No.177/2P in Sy, No 177 of Kamanambedu Village, B.N. Kandriga Mandal disposal of the above writ petition. ^ Tirupati District, pending Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The Court made the following SRI V. VINOD K REDDY 1 to 7: GP FOR REVENUE order: f APHC010435442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22203/2025 Between: 1.S PRAKASA NAIDU, S/0. SESHAMA NAIDU, AGE 72 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.2-800, KONDAMITTA STREET, SRIKALAHASTI TOWN AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2.Y.RAJA1AH NAIDU,, S/0. KRISHNAMA NAIDU AGE 71 YEARS, R/0. 1-56, B.N.KANDRIGA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.S.VIJAYA BABU„ S/0. VENKATARAMANA NAIDU, AGE 62 YEARS, R/0. 6-1-70/DI, K.T.ROAD, SRIPURAM COLONY, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENTS AND LAND RECORDS, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CCLA, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 5.JOINT COLLECTOR CUMSETTLEMENT OFFICER, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 6.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SULLURPET, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7.THE TAHSILDAR, B.N.KANDRIGA MANDAL, 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 topleased to issue any writ or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not mutating the names of the petitioners in the revenue records with respect to the land admeasuring an extent of Ac. 6.00 cents in Sy. No. 177/2P of Kamanambedu Village, B.N. Kandriga Mandal, Tirupati 11.06.2025, 17.02.2025 and 20.04.2015 addressed by the petitioners. District, despite the representations dated 2 and'"300:A"o?The ""“"f violative of Articles 14, 21, respondents herein to r^utatTthe r!ames oMhT'''^Tf revenue records with respect to the said lands rep-entations dated 11^06.2025, 17^02.Jo2?and%aoT20i jA NO: 1 OF 20?.^ Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioner(S)- 1.VVINODK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S)- 1.GP FOR REVENUE and praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22203 of 2025 If f ORDER:- Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that representation dated 11.06.2025 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...” 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 3. 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 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. 4. 5. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioners’ representation dated 11.06.2025 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 no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Principal Secretary, Pradesh, Secretariat at Velagapudi Revenue Department, State of Amaravati, Guntur District. Andhra i % 2. The Commissioner and Director of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration(CCLA), MangalagirJ.^ Guntur District. 4. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati. 5. Joint Collector -Cum-Settlement Officer, Tirupati District, Tirupati.^ 6. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Sullurpet, Tirupati District. 7. The Tahsildar, B.N.Kandriga Mandal, Tirupati District. ^ 8. One CC to Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 ORDER WP No.22203 OF 2025 1( ’ < SEP 2025 )^) NfStlfggnt Sectiofl,xV^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS