ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering his representations dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021 and failure to cancel the deed of cancellation bearing document No. 1426 of 1996 executed and registered against the property bearing plot No.279 of Madhavadhara layout previously VUDA now VMRDA, in Survey No.14 of Madhavadhara, Visakhapatnam and to restore the Original Sale Deed registered by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner vide document No.954/1996 despite the directions of the Court in WP.No.9223 of 1996 dated 25.02.2005 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to direct the respondent No.2 to delete the deed of cancellation bearing document No.1426 of 1996 from the list of encumbrances against the property. 2. The petitioner states that he is absolute owner of the house plot No.279 of Madhavadhara layout of VUDA previously VMRDA in Sy.No.14 having purchased from the 2nd respondent in the year 1989. After resolving the dispute with regard to stamp duty, the document was released as Sale deed No. 954 of 1996. The 2nd respondent cancelled the sale deed on the ground that the land was not utilised for construction of house. Aggrieved by the said cancellation, the petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No. 9223 of 1996. The said Writ Petition was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2005 setting aside the order of cancellation of sale deed in letter No. P.No. 279/MIG/MD/C3 dated 18.03.1996 on the ground that “not utilising the plot for construction is not a valid ground” to cancel the very allotment. Consequently, the original sale deed was restored. The grievance of the petitioner is that the deed of cancellation bearing Document No. 1426 of 1996 is still being shown in the list of Encumbrances. Therefore he is requesting to delete deed of cancellation from the list of encumbrances against the property bearing plot No. 279 of Madhavara layout of VUDA. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of representations dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021 pending before respondent authorities, without touching the merits of the case. 4. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of representations dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021 pending before respondent authorities, without touching the merits of the case. 4. Learned Government Pleader for MA and UD appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representations, dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities. 4. Recording the submissions made by 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.Venkatesh, 2019 (8) SCALE 544 ”, 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 no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representations, dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021 pending before respondent authorities, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondents to dispose of the representations, dated 29.04.2019, 06.05.2019 and 28.05.2021 in accordance with law, within six (06) weeks from the date of a receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.