APHC010410142025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21059/2025 Between: 1. VIRODHI SATYAVATHIDEVI, W/O RAJARAO, AGED 62 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KONDAPALEM VILLAGE, ROLUGUNTA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT AT ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM REVENUE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. PYDIGANTIA SUBBALAKSHMI, W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, R . ROLUGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. BOLLAPRAGADA SURYA KUMARI, W/O. VENKATA RAMA MURTHY, R/O. SUJATHA NAGAR, PENDURTY, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. YELLURU NAGALAKSHMI, W/O. GURUNADHA MURTHY, R/O. GACHIBOULI, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA STAE. 8. BODASAKURTHI SRINIVASARAO, S/O. LATE BRAHMAJI RAO, R/O. TUTIPALA VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI 2 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 inaction on the part of respondents, particularly 4th respondent on petitioners Mee-seva Applications dt. 12.06.2025 submitted for granting E-Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title Deed and mutation of her name in all online Record of Rights such as Adangal pahanies, l-B Register connected to 1/5th share of her landed properties of covered by Sy.Nos.9, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 13, 15, 16, 32, 57, 58, 59, 61, 71, 97-14, 110-1, 214, 215-1, 217, 218-2, 288, 230-2, 306, 307-1, 307-2, 311, 312, 313, 327, 366, 402-1,409, 416, of Tootipala Revenue Village in Makavarapalem Mandal of Anakapalli District (Erst while Visakhapatnam District) totaling approximately Ac. 60.00 cents, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amounts to non discharge of legal obligation conferred on 4th respondent under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed there under and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to grant E- Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title Deed and mutate petitioners 1/5 share of land in her favour in all online Web land Record of Rights such as Adangal Pahanie, 1-B Register etc., connected to her said lands and pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to consider and decide petitioner’s Mee-seva Applications dt.12.06.2025 submitted for granting E- Pattadar Passbook-cum-Title Deed and mutation of her name in all online Record of Rights such as Adangal pahanies, l-B Register connected to 1/5 share of her landed properties of covered by Sy.Nos.9, 10-1, 10-2, 11, 13, 15, 16, 32, 57, 58, 59, 61, 71, 97-14, 110-1, 214, 215-1, 217, 218-2, 288, 230-2, 306, 307-1, 307-2, 311, 312, 313, 327, 366, 402-1, 409, 416, of Tootipala Revenue Village in Makavarapalem Mandal of Anakapalli District (Erst while Visakhapatnam District) totaling approximately Ac. 60.00 cents. Pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NANI BABU ROBBA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 21059 of 2025 ORDER: Pithily this writ petition is filed on the grounds that a Mee-seva application was made to the authorities, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the Mee-seva application, as such direction would suffice in the 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.” 3. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing "consideration" of a claim or application should examine whether the claim or application 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 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 4 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 Mee-seva 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 that the petitioner's Mee-seva application bearing No.MUT250612101381 dated 12.06.2025 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 six weeks from the date of the order is received. 6. 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: 11.08.2025 SNI 5 107 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.21059 of 2025 Date: 11.08.2025 SNI