::1:: APHC010547042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28392/2025 Between: 1. POTHURI LINGAIAH, , S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. ANAMANAMURU VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, , BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA. 3. THE KORISAPADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, KORISAPADU, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 4. RAAVI SRIDHAR, S/O. VENKAT RAO, AGE ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 5. KOPPARTHI VENKATESWARLU, S/O. LATE PUNNAIAH AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE, KORISAPADU ::2:: MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. 6. USURUPATI CHINNA BABU, , S/O. MOHAN RAO, AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. KORISAPADU VILLAGE, KORISAPADU MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the Petitioner for the following relief: <to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the 3rd respondent in taking appropriate action to prevent the illegal constructions being made by . the respondent nos. 4 to 6 in the petitioners land to an extent of Ac. 1.39 Cents in Sy. No. 55/1 (LP No. 425), by considering his complaint dt. 23.09.2025, and pass…= 2. 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 consider the application/representation dated 23.09.2025 of the Petitioner in accordance with law. ::3:: 4. The learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents did not refute the allegations and readily agreed to consider the application/representation of the petitioner dated 23.09.2025, if any pending with the authorities. 5. In view of the submission of the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, 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 not serve the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to consider the application/representation dated 23.09.2025, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 5th respondent to consider the application/representation dated 23.09.2025 submitted by the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by passing a speaking order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned parties. No costs. 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ::4:: Consequently, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J Dt: 16.10.2025 klk ::5:: 106 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 28392 of 2025 16.10.2025 ::6:: klk