APHC010448202025 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: 22894 OF 2025 Between: 1. Smt. Rahim Bee, W/o. Basheer Sab, Aged about 59 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. D.No. 4-41, Goliapalli Village, Gorentia Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District. K. Venkataramana, , S/o Aswarappa, Aged about 53 years Occ Agriculture, R/o. 1st Ward Kate Palli.Ananthapur District Andhra Pradesh. 2. ...Petitioners AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District The District Collector, Chairman, DLC Sri Sathya Sai District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda, Sri Sathya Sai District. The Tahsildar, Gorantia Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...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 one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent inconsidering the vide application bearing No. APDL 012200216968 dated - f 03.11.2022 and APDL 12200218688 dated 22.12.2022 applied through MeeSeva for deleting the subject land to an extent of Ac. 1.09 cents in Sy.No.lOO-IAI and Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No. 100-1A1 situated at Vadigepalli polam, Vadigepalli panchayat, Gorantia Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from the 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. 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 2nd Respondent to consider the vide application bearing No. APDL 012200216968 dated 03-11-2022 and PDL 12200218688 dated 22.12.2022 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: f APHC010448202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3330] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22894 of 2025 Between: 1.SMT. RAHIM BEE,, W/0. BASHEER SAB, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0. D.NO. 4-41, GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, GORENTIA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2.K. VENKATARAMANA, , S/0 ASWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE, PALLI,ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. R/0. 1ST WARD KATE ...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 inconsidering the vide application bearing No. 12200218688 dated 22.12.2022 applied through MeeSeva for deleting the subject land to an extent of Ac. 1.09 cents in Sy.No.lOO-IAI and Ac.1.10 cents in Sy.No. 100-1A1 situated at Vadigepalli polam. APDL 012200216968 dated 03.11.2022 and APDL 2 Vadigepalli panchayat, Gorantia Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District from thp p.rv,ew of 22-A by duly considering the report submS by he 4th Respondent vide Rc.No.334/2022/A dt 03 2093 ac u? Violative Of Article 14, 21 and 3o'^A of Con:«Sn oT'',nd“"n''d landsXm "Ia'®'" '■®®P°ndenf to forthwith delete the subject 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 applications 012200216968 dated 03.11.2022 and APDL bearing Nos.APDL 12200218688 dated 22.12.2022 made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to such direction would suffice in the address the application, as 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. ■ This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or representation/application 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 If it is with reference to a "dead" or "stale issue or 3. f "stale" issue, 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 4 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." 4. 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. 5. However, the respondents are directed to consider the applications Nos.APDL 012200216968 dated 03.11.2022 12200218688 dated 22.12.2022, 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. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be order as to costs. petitioners’ and APDL no As a sequel thereto. Interlocutory Applications pending, if,any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIONOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The 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. 5. One CC to Sri. Satish Sandu, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies. AL HIGH COURT TL DATED:10/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22894 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS