Mookiti Ramanamma vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Held

The Court held that in view of the petitioner's request to issue a direction for the disposal of the F-line application and the Government Pleader's agreement to the same, it was not necessary to decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's caution in "The Government of India v. P. Venkatesh" against issuing directions for quick disposal of cases that may not serve the cause of justice. However, given the specific request from the petitioner's counsel, the Court found no alternative but to issue such a direction. The respondents, particularly respondents 3 and 4, were directed to consider and dispose of the F-line application dated January 22, 2025, after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, within two months from the date of receipt of the order. No order as to costs was made.

Facts

The petitioner, Mookiti Ramanamma, filed a writ petition challenging the inaction of respondents 3 and 4 in not disposing of her F-line application (Application No.FSNV012500635969) dated January 22, 2025. This application was filed online for conducting a survey and fixing boundaries for land parcels measuring Ac.1.20 cents in Survey No.49/4 and Ac.0.68 cents in Survey No.49/6, located in Cheruku Ragappa Naidu Kandriga Village, Thotembedu Mandal, Tirupati District. The petitioner alleged that the respondents' failure to act was illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to rules, and violated constitutional provisions and principles of natural justice. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel requested a direction for the respondents to consider and dispose of the application without delving into the merits of the case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' inaction in disposing of the petitioner's F-line application dated January 22, 2025, for conducting a survey and fixing boundaries is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the respondents' failure to process and decide her application was illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, contrary to rules, and violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the principles of natural justice. The petitioner specifically requested a direction for the disposal of the application without touching upon the merits of the case. Revenue's Argument: The learned Government Pleader for Revenue readily agreed to the petitioner's request for the disposal of the F-line application pending with the authorities within a reasonable time.