APHC010485122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24758/2025 Between: 1. YERRAMA NAYUNI REDDEPPA, S/O. LATE NARASIMHULU, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.GANAGAVARAM VILLAGE, VALASAPALLE POST, MADANAPALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPLLI REVENUE DIVISION, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPLLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, MADANAPLLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the resumption notice in Ref. No. A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025 issued by 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, non application of mind and in violation of the interim order dated 21.06.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 12788 of 2024 and offends article 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent, to forthwith withdraw the said notice in Ref No A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025 and refrain from initiating, continuing, or executing any coercive action, including resumption proceedings or eviction, against petitioners landed property 2 admeasuring Ac. 1.795 Cents in Sy.No.546/2 and Sy.No.546/2A, pending compliance with the judicial directives in W.P. No. 12788 of 2024 and W.P. No. 16497 of 2024 and pass 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 suspend the operation of resumption notice in Ref. No. A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025 issued by 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of landed property admeasuring Ac. 1.795 Cents in Sy. No. 546/2 and Sy. No. 546/2A, pending compliance with the judicial directives in I.A.No. 1 of 2024 in W.P. No. 12788 of 2024 and W.P. No. 16497 of 2024, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJENDRA C 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. 24758 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the resumption notice in Ref. No. A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025 issued by 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, non application of mind and in violation of the interim order dated 21.06.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P. No.12788 of 2024 and offends Article 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent, to forthwith withdraw the said notice in Ref No A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025 and refrain from initiating, continuing, or executing any coercive action, including resumption proceedings or eviction, against petitioners landed property admeasuring Ac. 1.795 Cents in Sy.No. 546/2 and Sy. No. 546/2A, pending compliance with the judicial directives in W.P. No. 12788 of 2024 and W.P. No. 16497 of 2024 and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Succinctly, the writ petition is filed to declare the show cause notice issued vide Ref.No.A/118/2025 dated 30.08.2025, by the 4th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction on the grounds that the impugned notice is vague, lack of specific allegations or evidence and fails to address the objections violating the Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act and Rules 2007 and the eviction for alleged public purposes without written 4 proceedings, public notification, compensation or adherence to the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing the matter for some time, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation dated 12.09.2025, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 4. The learned Advocate General has not significantly opposed the relief requested by the petitioner’s counsel but it is requested that any direction be limited till the disposal of the representation. 5. 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. 6. 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 7. However the respondents are directed that the petitioner's representation dated 12.09.2025 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 four weeks from the date of the order is received. Till disposal of the representation, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 8. 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 : 15.09.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:24758 of 2025 Date : 15.09.2025 SPP