Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
C Ramachandraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 October, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.18854 OF 2020
ORDER:
This 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 Writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 3 and 4 in interfering with petitioner's right over the land in an extent of Ac. 5.20 in Paimashi No.27 (Sy.No. 22), Ac. 3.20 cents in Paimashi No.13 (Sy.No.27), Ac. 8.00 cents in Paimashi No.34 (Sy.No.31) & Ac. 10.50 cents in Paimashi No.30 (Sy.No.38) of Pasupattur Village, Gangavaram Mandal, Chittoor District, while the Revision Petition, in R.P.No.03/2019-E1, Dated 04.02.2019 filed by the petitioner on the file of the Respondent No.3 against the Endorsement dated 21.12.2017 issued by the Respondent No.4 is pending for consideration and contemplating to assign the same in favour of third parties, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently directing the Respondent No.3 to consider the Revision Petition referred above and pass appropriate orders.
2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the Revision Petition in R.P.No. 03/2019-E1, dated 04.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the Revision Petition in R.P.No. 03/2019-E1, dated 04.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner, if any pending with the respondent authorities. 2
4. In view of the submission of Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition.
5. 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 Revision Petition in R.P.No. 03/2019-E1, dated 04.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.
6. In the result, Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondent No.3 to dispose of Revision Petition in R.P.No.03/2019- E1, dated 04.02.2019 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from today. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date: 16.10.2020 VSL 1 2019 (8) SCALE 544 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.18854 OF 2020 Date: 16-10-2020 VSL