Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 92 (AP)

Sangu Rajasekhar Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-21

M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. 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 Writ of Mandamus, declaring inaction on the part of respondents on the petitioner's representation dt.04.03.2016 submitted to re-convey the unutilized lands i.e., Ac.0.12 cents, Ac.0.49 cents, Ac.0.78 cents, Ac.0.67 cents, Ac.0.84 cents and further Ac.0.54 cents respectively covered by Survey Nos.239/3, 239/4, 239/5, 239/6, 239/7, 239/8 and Ac.3.50 cents and Ac.3.46 cents in Survey Nos.261/1, 261/2A in total Ac.10.40 cents which were acquired from the petitioner for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections people in the Taticherla Revenue Village of Komurolu Mandal of Prakasam District and remained unutilized as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of provisions The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and offends articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to decide the petitioner's said representation in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders.' 2. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Mrs.Bonthu Rajani, learned counsel for the petitioner limited his request to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2016 made by the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents readily agreed to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the respondent-authorities. 4. 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.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 not serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction. 5. 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 representation dated 04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated 04.03.2016 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it is pending. No costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.