I ^ f APHC010448212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22876 OF 2025 Between: 1. K Venkataramana, S/o Aswarappa, Agriculture Pradesh. 2. M. Ramarangeswara Reddy,, S/o. M. Prasad Reddy, Aged about 48 years,R/o. G2, Noves Square, Thani Sandra Main Road, Bangalore. Aged about 53 years Occ R/o. 1st Ward Kate Palli.Ananthapur District, Andhra ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Chairman, DLC Sri Sathya Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Sathya Sai District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gorantia Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai 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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent inconsidering the application bearing No. DTL 23.09.2022 applied through MeeSeva for deleting the subject land to an one in 220923023251 dated extent of Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.99-1A and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.99-2B3 situated at Vadigepalli polam, Vadigepalli panchayat. Gorantia Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from the purview of 22-A by duly considering the submitted by the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.334/2022/A dt .03.2023 Illegal and arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constituition of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith subject lands from 22-A. report as delete the 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 2nd Respondent to consider the application bearing No. DTL 220923023251 dated 23.09.2022 applied through MeeSeva pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SATISH SANDU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010448212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22876 of 2025 Between: 1.K VENKATARAMANA, S/0 ASWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 R/0. 1ST WARD KATE AGRICULTURE, YEARS OCC PALLI.ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2.M. RAMARANGESWARA REDDY,, S/0. M. PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,R/0. G2, NOVES SQUARE, THANI SANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN, DLC SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, GORANTIA MANDAL, DISTRICT SRI SATHYA SAI ...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, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering the application bearing No. DTL 220923023251 dated 23.09.2022 applied through MeeSeva for deleting the subject land to an extent of Ac.2.60 cents in Sy.No.99- 1A and Ac.0.37 cents in Sy.No.99-2B3 situated at Vadigepalli polam, Vadigepalli panchayat, Gorantia Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from the 2 purview of 22-A by duly considering the report submitted by the 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.334/2022/A dt .03.2023 as illegal and arbitrary, violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constituition of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to forthwith delete the subject lands from 22-A. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SATISH SANDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Pithily, this Writ Petition is filed on the grounds that application bearing No.DTL 220923023251 dated 23.09.2022 made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the application, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 2. 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. 3. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation/ap plication should examine whether the claim or representation/application is with reference to a "live" issue or whether it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale" issue. I 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 4 ?■ Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect." Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of application 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. However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners’ application dated 23.09.2022, examine the same thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date the order is received. 4. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. 6. no As a sequel thereto. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// r S^^ION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat Amaravathi Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Chairman, DLC 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri 4. The Tahsildar, Gorantia Mandal 5. One CC to Sri. Satish Sandu Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies. Velagapudi Sri Sathya Sai District. Sathya Sai District. Sri Sathya Sai District Pradesh [OUT] AL HIGH COURT TL DATED; 10/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22876 OF 2025 .'T' ■ s{ 2 2 SEP 2025 jg) ''fisCjirrentSectaiX*^' DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS