Pemmasani Nichitha Vs the State of Ap

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in not mutating the name of the petitioner on the web land and in the relevant revenue records for the land an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.17/2 of Yanadi vettu Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District though the petitioner has submitted representation dated 13.02.2025 requesting to rectification of entries in Record of Rights as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the respondent No.4 to consider the application No.MUT250225052991 vide transaction ID No. TMUT250225052991 dated 13.02.2025 submitted through MeeSeva for mutation of the name of the petitioner on the web land an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.17/2 of Yanadi vettu Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District under the provisions of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass books Act, 1971 and to pass such other order or orders….”

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

respondents to consider and dispose of the application

¶27

No.MUT250225052991, dated 13.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner through Mee-Seva for mutation of her name in the web land for the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.14 cents in Sy.No.17/2 of Yanadi vettu Village, Varadaiahpalem Mandal, Tirupati District.

¶28

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to dispose of the application No.MUT250225052991, dated 13.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner, pending with the authorities, within a reasonable time.

¶29

In view of the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, 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 to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the application No.MUT250225052991, dated 13.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner, this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶30

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the application No.MUT250225052991, dated 13.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner, after providing opportunity of hearing

¶31

1 2004 (1) SCC 769

¶32

to all the parties concerned, within a period of three (03) months from the date

¶33

of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶35

_______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶36

24.03.2025