APHC010056252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] SATURDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO:3162 of 2024 Between: 1. KOLLU PARAMESWARAMMA,, W/O. RAMANAYYA, AGED 55 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MUDIVARTHI VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. MUSALI LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA,, W/O. VENKATA RAMANAYYA AGED 50 YEARS. AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF MUDIVARTHI VILLAGE, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTIRCT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, NELLORE 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, . KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRTICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, VIDAVALUR MANDAL, VIDAVALUR, 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 may be pleased to issue Writ or direction under article 226 of the constitution of India, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on part of the Respondents in taking action to demarcate and measuring the house sites to hand over the petitioners along with other beneficiaries in pursuance of notice in R.C.B 521/2022 dated 29.09.2022, issued by the Tahsildar, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District i.e. 4th Respondent herein as unjust, arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to handover the house sites in survey no. 48/2, in an extent of Ac 1. 89 cents and survey No. 49/lB in an extent of Ac 0.56 total Ac.2 .45 cents of Mudivarthi Village, Vidavalur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District each at the rate of 18 Ankanams and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 respondents to take action in pursuance of the notice issued in R.C.b. 521/2022 dated 29-09-2022, for handing over the house sites, to the each of the petitioners, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3162 of 2024 ORDER: Pithily this Writ Petition is filed on the ground that a representation dated 26.09.2022 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. 2. In the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in The Government of India v. 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 representation, should 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 dated 26.09.2022, 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 (6) 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. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.08.2025 KNN