APHC010487392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25248/2025 Between: 1. TANUKU JAGADESH, S/O. TANUKU NAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.3-41, NAGIRIPALLI, PETHEGADA VILLAGE, NAGIRIPALLI POST, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. TANUKU SAILAJA,, W/O. TANUKU JAGADESH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.3-41, NAGIRIPALLI, PETHEGADA VILLAGE, NAGIRIPALLI POST, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (REGISTRATION AND STAMPS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTI. ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLI DIVISION, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KALIKIRI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR 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 a Writ, One in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declaring the action of the respondents in not deleting the petitioners land an extent of Ac.4.74 cents i.e., Ac.1.50 cents in Survey No.87/1A (belongs to 1st petitioner) and Ac.3.24 cents in Survey No.87/1A/2 (belongs to 2nd petitioner) situated at Pathegada Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Annamayya District erstwhile Chittoor District in from pursuance to the petitioners Applications dated 05.11.2024 Assigned Lands to Private land as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14, 21, 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th 2 respondent to delete the aforesaid land of the petitioners from the Assigned Land in revenue records 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 pleased to direct the 4th respondent to delete the petitioners land an extent of Ac.4.74 cents i.e., Ac. 1.50 cents in Survey No.87/1A (belongs to 1st petitioner) and Ac.3.24 cents in Survey No.87/1 A/2 (belongs to 2nd petitioner) situated at Pathegada Village, Kalikiri Mandal, Annamayya District erstwhile Chittoor District as Assigned Land, by considering applications dated 05.11.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25248 of 2025 ORDER:- Pithily, this writ petition is filed on the ground that application dated 05.11.2024, was 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India vs P. Venkatesh1 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…” 3. 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 "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 1 (2019) 15 SCC 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." 4. 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. However, the respondents are directed that the petitioners’ application dated 05.11.2024, 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. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 17.09.2025 KBN