APHC010534442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27757/2025 Between: 1. H.GANGADEVI, W/O ADINARAYANAPPA, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.KALLURU VILLAGE, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT). 3. THE JOINTCOLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT) 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONA REVENUE DIVISION, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT). 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHILAMATHUR MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT). 6. ZONAL MANAGER APIIC, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, (ERSTWHILE ANANTHAPUR 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 action of the 5th respondent in not considering my representations dated 12.09.2022 and 05.06.2023 thereby requesting to restore my name in the revenue records including web land revenue records pertaining to my land to an extent of Ac.4.98 cents in Sy.No.230/2 situated at Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapur District) as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Act, 30 of 2013 and offends Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to 2 restore my name in the revenue records including web land 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 to direct the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner for her land to an extent of Ac.4.98 cents in Sy.No.230/2 situated at Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapur District) in all revenue records including web land revenue records by considering the representations dated 12.09.2022 and 05.06.2023, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 27757 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ, direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not considering my representations dated 12.09.2022 and 05.06.2023 thereby requesting to restore petitioner’s name in the revenue records including web land revenue records pertaining to petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.4.98 cents in Sy.No.230/2 situated at Koduru Village, Chilamathur Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District (Erstwhile Ananthapur District) as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions of the Act, 30 of 2013 and offends Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restore petitioner’s name in the revenue records including web land revenue records and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 2. Pithily this writ petition is filed on the ground that a representation was made to the authorities, 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. 3. 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 4 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. 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 petitioner's representations dated 12.09.2022 and 05.06.2023, 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 eight 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 : 09.10.2025 SPP 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Writ Petition No:27757 of 2025 Date : 09.10.2025 SPP