M SADASIVA REDDY vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

APHC010162722023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 8345 OF 2023 Between: M Sadasiva Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.

SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.

GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the representation-cum-Spandana Application No.TPT2 0221205558 dated 05.12.2022 of the petitioner to convert the DKT Patta No.50/4/1406 dated 28.07.1997 issued in favour the petitioner assigning agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.48 Cts in Sy.No.

136/1 in Thondavada Village.

Chandragiri Mandal.

Tirupati District as the DKT Patta granted under Ex-Service men quota and for issuance of No Objection for alienation as arbitrary illegal in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to consider the representation-cum- Spandana Application No.TPT20221205558, dated 05.12.2022 of the petitioner to convert the DKT Patta No.50/4/1406, dated 28.07.1997 issued in favour the petitioner assigning agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.48 Cts in Sy.No.136/1 in Thondavada Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District and pass such other order.” 2.

Heard Mr.

Subba Rao Korrapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader, Revenue for the respondents 1 to 4.

3.

1 to 4.

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of the writ petition, with a direction to consider the representation 05.12.2022 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

4.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 readily agreed to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, if it is pending with the revenue authorities.

5.

Recording the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, I 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 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions.

But they do not serve to the cause of justice.

6.

In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, while directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 05.12.2022 in accordance with law, within four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ DR.

JUSTICE K.

MANMADHA RAO KK