APHC010483102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N BETWEEN: 1. PUCHAKATLA NAGAIAH, S/ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/ PEGALLAPADU POST, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. DABBUGOTTU PENCHALAIAH ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 3. SHAIK MOHAMMAD,, S/O. HAJARATH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK ALLA BASHA,, S/O. SHAIK VANUR SHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. CHILAKAPADU, SPSR NELO DISTRICT. 5. SHAIK KHAN SHA VALI,, S/O. CHINNA KAMAL SAHEB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU POST, PEGALLAPADU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. SHAIK MASTAN BEE,, W/O. LATE NANNE SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. MAIN BAZAAR, NANDIPADU, DUTTALURU, IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 25251/2025 PUCHAKATLA NAGAIAH, S/o. PEDDAVENKATASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/o. UMMAYAPALLI, PEGALLAPADU POST, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. DABBUGOTTU PENCHALAIAH, S/o. AITHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT SHAIK MOHAMMAD,, S/O. HAJARATH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. SHAIK ALLA BASHA,, S/O. SHAIK VANUR SHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. CHILAKAPADU, SPSR NELO SHAIK KHAN SHA VALI,, S/O. CHINNA KAMAL SAHEB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU POST, PEGALLAPADU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. SHAIK MASTAN BEE,, W/O. LATE NANNE SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. MAIN BAZAAR, NANDIPADU, DUTTALURU, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO . PEDDAVENKATASUBBAIAH, . UMMAYAPALLI, PEGALLAPADU POST, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR . AITHAIAH, AGED MARRIPADU SHAIK MOHAMMAD,, S/O. HAJARATH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SHAIK ALLA BASHA,, S/O. SHAIK VANUR SHA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. CHILAKAPADU, SPSR NELORE SHAIK KHAN SHA VALI,, S/O. CHINNA KAMAL SAHEB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU POST, SHAIK MASTAN BEE,, W/O. LATE NANNE SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/O. MAIN BAZAAR, NANDIPADU, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 7. DABBUGOTTU VENKATAIAH,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 8. INDIA POLAIAH,, S/O. POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 9. IJJAGIRI ADEMMA,, W/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 10. PUTCHAKATIA LAKSHMIDEVI,, W/O. LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. UMMAYAPALLI, PEGALLAPADU POST, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 11. CHEVULA RAMANAMMA,, W/O. RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 12. CHEVULA HAZARATHAMMA,, W/O. SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 13. SHAIK MEERAIAH,, S/O. HAJARATHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. PEGALLAPADU, MARRIPADU MANDAL,SPSRNELLOREDISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR 3 DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, (TELUGU GANGA PROJECT) NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LAND ACQUISITION) SOMASILA PROJECT, NELLORE UNIT, L/C RAPUR AT NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in paying the interest for delay in payment of compensation proceedings dated i.e.,06.09.2018 to date of 19.08.2024 amounting to Rs.1,08,22,904/- U/s.80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 to the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the interest amount immediately and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the ground that a representation dated 17.07.2025 was made to the District Collector, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District, The Special Deputy Collector (Telugu Gnaga Project), Nellore, The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Telugu Ganga Project, Nellore, but it was not addressed. Therefore, it is urged that the respondents be directed to address the representation, as such direction would suffice in the circumstances of the case. 2. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India and another vs P. Venkatesh1 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 representation, should 1 (2019) 15 SCC 613 5 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 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 to consider the petitioners’ representation, examine thoroughly, issue orders accordingly, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. It goes without saying that the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 6 As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.10.2025 Harin 7 112 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 25251 OF 2025 Date: 08.10.2025 Harin