::1:: APHC010533712024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28526/2024 Between: Byreddy Karunakar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BABUJI TENNETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28526/2024 This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the action of the Respondent No 3 in issuing the Patta Sub-division proceedings pertaining to Sy No.437/6E (Khatha No 903) admeasuring Ac.0.29 cents, situated at Tiruchanur Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District, pursuant to the application made through mee seva on 13.09.2024 followed by legal Notice dt.25.10.2024 as being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the 3rd Respondent herein to issue the Patta Sub-Division proceedings to the petitioner herein in respect of the above mentioned land and to pass” 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted an application through mee-seva on 13.09.2024 for issuance of Patta Sub- Division proceedings in respect of petitioner’s land in Sy.No.437/6E (Khatha No.903) admeasuring Ac. 0.29 cents, situated at Tiruchanur Village, by duly paying the requisite fee. Despite receiving the said ::3:: application, the 3rd Respondent neither issued the Patta Sub-Division proceedings nor gave any response in spite of petitioner’s personal visits. Hence the writ petition. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the mee-seva application dated 13.09.2024 of the Petitioner. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the mee-seva application dated 13.09.2024, if any pending with the authorities. 5. In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::4:: cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the mee-seva application dated 13.09.2024, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3rd respondent to dispose of the mee-seva application dated 13.09.2024 of the Petitioner within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing a speaking order. No costs. Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:19.03.2025 Krk ::5:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 84 WRIT PETITION NO: 28526/2024 19.03.2025 krk