APHC010470472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■y !vr :d Tj ¥ O !\! m 73 W cyi iW THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO / WRIT PETITION NO: 24383 OF 2025 z' Between: Kandi Appanna,, S/o Chinnayya, Aged 49 years, R/o Rapaka Village Koguru Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasannapet Division, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Narasannapet Mandal, Srikakulam 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not disposing of the Petitioners Mutation Application No. MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to Consider the Petitioners Mutation Application No. MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025 and mutate the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land purchased under Sale Deed dated 18.05.2009, situated in Nadagum Village, Narasannapet Mandal, Srikakulam District, admeasuring Ac. 0.34 cents in Survey No. 285/12, Ac. 0.15 cents in Survey No. 302/8 and Ac. 0.10 cents in Survey No. 302/9A (Part), totaling Ac. 0.59 cents, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 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 the Petitioner’s Mutation Application No. MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRj B V SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: - ^ APHC010470472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] iVT; THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24383/2025 Between: 1.KANDI APPANNA,, S/0 CHINNAYYA. AGED 49 YEARS, R/0 RAPAKA VILLAGE DISTRICT, KOGURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASANNAPET DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, NARASANNAPET MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not disposing of the Petitioners Mutation Application No. MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents to Consider the Petitioners Mutation Application No. MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025 and mutate the name of the Petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land purchased under Sale Deed dated 18.05.2009, situated in Nadagum Village, Narasannapet Mandal, Srikakulam District, admeasuring Ac. 0.34 cents in Survey No. 285/12, Ac. 0.15 cents in Survey No. 302/8 and Ac. 0.10 cents in Survey No. 302/9A (Part), totaling Ac. 0.59 cents, and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and to pass 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 4.- 2 High Court rs: s "• c.si;s,r/,s:r‘'”“'" “ “■• 1.B V SRINIVASA RAO r^pc?.'' R®sPondenf(S): 1GP FOR REVENUE respondents to • MUT250421012534 writ petition and pass r W THEH 3 honourable SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24383 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily, this writ petition is filed on the ground that application NO.MUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025, was made to the not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the be directed to address the application, as such direction bearing authorities, but it respondents would suffice in the circumstances of the case. was 2 The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. ^QPkatesh^ 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 3. 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, stale" issue or dispute, the dead" or 1 If it is with reference to a 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. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioner’s application bearing No.kyiUT250421012534 dated 21.04.2025, 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. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no 6. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sdl- K J RAJA BABU assistant registrar SECTOIN OFFICER / / //TRUE COPY// To 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. /7 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narasannapet Division, Srikakulam ^ District. 4. The Tahsildar, Narasannapet Mandal, Srikakulam District 5. One CC to Sri. B V Srinivasa Rao Advocate [OPUC] 6. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT 7. Two CD Copies gsc HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 24383 OF 2025 \ 4 ^ , Current Section ^*54^8pat DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS