Guduru Pothuraju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Totakura Sairam, S/o. Kantha Rao, Aged 23 years. Daily Wage Worker. All are residents of Chadalawada Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

/

¶16

1. The State of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^Guntur District.

¶17

District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole.

¶18

Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole Revenue Division, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶19

Tahsildar, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District

¶20

Village Revenue Officer, Chadalawada Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶23

be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particular one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring of the inaction of the respondents on petitioner’s representation dated 13.12.2024 submitted for entering the landed property of Ac 2.21 Cents covered by S.No.364 of Chadalawada Revenue Village of Naguluppalapadu Mandal in Prakasam District, in disputed property register, as illegal, irregular, irrational and non- discharge of legal obligation conferred on him, violative of provisions of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to place the aforesaid property in the Disputed Properties List. lA 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 consider and decide petitioner’s representation dated 13.12.2024 submitted for entering the landed property of Ac 2.21 Cents covered by S.No.364 of Chadalawada Revenue Village of Naguluppalapadu Mandal in Prakasam District, in disputed property register, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI PETLURI NAGA RAJU

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5:GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

APHC010101112025

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶28

[3329]

¶29

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 6726/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

Guduru Pothuraju and Others

¶36

...PETITIONER(S)

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶41

1.PETLURI NAGA RAJU

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶44

¶45

The Court made the following:

¶46

2

¶47

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO: 672fi/?n9/;

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶51

of the India seeking the following reliefs:-

¶52

to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one m the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inacthn of /'eprese.faf/on dated 13.12^2024 submitted for entering the landed property of Ac.2.21 cents covered by S.No.364 of Chadalawada District, n disputed property register as illegal irreaular °‘^kgat'on conferred on him, violative of provisions of natural justice and offends Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to place the aforesaid property in the disputed properties list and pass such other order. ’’

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶54

Though the petitioners made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 13.12.2024 submitted by the petitioners.

¶55

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the representation if any pending with the respondents.

¶56

3

¶57

In view of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, this Court need not^decidethe truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.^ThisCourt is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh^”, wherein the Apex Court held that such^ordersmay make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioners^{himselfrequested} to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 13.12.2024, this Court find no other alternative except^toissuesuch direction.

¶58

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation dated 13.12.2024 filed by the petitioners, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties, within a period of two(2)^{monthsfromthe} date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall^{benoorderasto} costs.

¶59

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if^any,shall

¶60

also stand closed.

¶61