Quick Disposal Of Cases By Representation Mantra Does Disservice To Justice | AP High Court Orders Authorities To Decide Farmers’ Compensation Within Six Weeks
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao directed the concerned authorities to consider a representation submitted by the petitioners, examine it thoroughly, issue appropriate orders, and communicate the decision to the petitioners. The Court stipulated that the entire process must be completed within six weeks from the date the order is received. The Court disposed of the writ petition without imposing any order as to costs and ordered the closure of all pending interlocutory applications as a sequel to the final order.
The writ petition arose from allegations by the petitioners that despite their representation dated 18 June 2025, their claim for determination of compensation under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 had not been addressed. The petitioners contended that the inaction of the third and fourth respondents—The Special Collector (Land Acquisition) for Galeru Nagari Srujala Sravanthi (GNSS) and the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) for Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II, Kadapa District—was illegal, irregular, arbitrary, and violative of statutory provisions as well as Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners, residents of various locations in Kadapa District, asserted that their acquired lands situated at Jonnavaram Village, Atloor Mandal, Kadapa District were covered by Award No. 3/2015-16 dated 20 March 2015 issued by the fourth respondent. Despite making a due request through their representation, they alleged that the respondents failed to refer their claim for determination of market value and compensation to the competent authority as mandated under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.
They sought a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents illegal and unconstitutional and a consequential direction to the respondents to refer their claims for determination of market value and compensation. The statutory provision invoked, Section 64 of the 2013 Act, pertains to reference to an authority for adjudication of disputes relating to the award, including matters such as the amount of compensation, the person to whom it is payable, and apportionment among claimants.
The petitioners were represented by Advocate Navuluru Krishna Sai. The respondents included the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to the Water Resources Department; the District Collector, Kadapa District; the Special Collector (Land Acquisition) for GNSS; the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) for Telugu Ganga Project, Unit-II; and the Chief Engineer, NTR Telugu Ganga, Tirupati District. The respondents were represented by the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and the Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development (IRRI and CAD).
The petitioners maintained that they had fulfilled the procedural requirements by making the representation in June 2025, yet the authorities failed to take action, thereby compelling them to approach the High Court for redressal. The relief sought was grounded in the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary state action and the right to fair compensation in land acquisition matters.
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Government of India vs. P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613, which stated: "Dispose of the representation’ mantra is increasingly permeating the judicial process in the High Courts and the Tribunals. Such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do not service to the cause of justice. The litigant is back again before the Court, as this case shows, having incurred attendant costs and suffered delays of the legal process. This would have been obviated by calling for a counter in the first instance, thereby resulting in finality to the dispute."
The Court recorded that it is "not oblivious of the fact that a Court to authorities, before directing 'consideration' of a claim or representation should examine whether the claim or representation is with reference to a 'live' issue or whether it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue." It further noted: "If it is with reference to a 'dead' or 'stale' issue or dispute, the Court/tribunal should put an end to the matter and should not direct consideration or reconsideration. If the Court or Tribunal decides to direct 'consideration' without itself examining the merits, it should make it clear that such consideration will be without prejudice to any contention relating to limitation or delay and laches. Even if the Court does not expressly say so, that would be the legal position and effect."
Justice Rao reiterated the Supreme Court’s caution that "Disposal of proceedings by seemingly innocuous orders directing consideration of representation though result in quick or easy disposal of cases in overburdened adjudicatory institutions, but such orders do more disservice than service to the cause of justice."
The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 18 June 2025. It ordered that the representation be examined thoroughly, orders be issued accordingly, and the decision be communicated to the petitioners. The Court mandated that "the entire process will be completed within six weeks from the date the order is received."
The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs. The Court also directed that all interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed as a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Navuluru Krishna Sai, Advocate
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Land Acquisition; Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development
Case Title: Somisetty Subbarayudu & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010389652025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 20342 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
