Allowed

Shaik Hussain, v. The District Collector

Telangana HC5 Oct 2004WP/17909/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held revenue authorities obligated to furnish certified copies of public land documents if applications are in proper form and charges are paid, directing respondents to issue copies in two writ petitions.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to issue certified copies of the requested land revenue documents if applications were in proper form and charges were collected.

Shaik Hussain, Vs The District Collector — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2004)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos : 17909 and 17962 of 2004

¶7

W.P.No.17909 of 2004:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shaik Hussain, S/o. Nabi Saheb, R/o. Islampeta, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶10

..... PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶13

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶14

.....RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction by declaring the inaction of the respondents for not furnishing the certified copies of the Extracts is arbitrary and illegal consequently direct the respondents herein to furnish the certified copies of the 1. Extract of 10(1) Patta Register, 2. Extract of No. 2 Accounts Adangal, 3. Extract of D.K. Patta Register and 4. Extract of R.O.R. I-A and I-B Register to the extent of Petitioners' land Ac. 5-00 Cents in Sy.No. 273/6 of Siddavaram Village of Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District in the interest of justice.

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO : 17962 of 2004

¶17

Between:

¶18

Sardar Khan, S/o.Masthan Khan, R/o.H.No.13-16-27, Chinna Bazar, Multi Street, Guntur.

¶19

..... PETITIONER

¶20

AND

¶21

1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶22

2 The Mandal Revenue officer, Chirala, Prakasam District.

¶23

.....RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring the inaction of the respondents for not furnishing the certified copies of the Extracts is arbitrary and illegal, consequently direct the respondents herein to furnish the certified copies of the 1. Extract of 10(1) patta Register, 2. Extract of No.2 Account Adangal, 3.Extract of D.K.Patta Register and 4. Extract of R.O.R. I A and I-B Registyer to the extent of petitioner's land Ac. 5-00 cents in Sy.No.700/2 situated at Gavinivaripalem Village of Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District in the interest of justice.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners (in both writ petitions) :MR.I.LAXMIKANTHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents ( in both petitions): GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

The Court at the stage of admission made the following :

¶27

COMMON ORDER:

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.

¶29

The gravaman of the complaint in these two writ petitions is that the petitioners applied for certified copies of 10(1) Patta Register, Extract of No.2 Account Adangal, Extract of D.K.Patta Register and Extract of R.O.R.I-A and I-B Register, but the same have not been furnished, though they are public documents, for which the petitioners are entitled to, on complying with the necessary formalities. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner, in W.P.No.17909 of 2004, raised a consumer dispute in C.D.No.75 of 2003 on the file of the District Forum, Ongole, Prakasam District, wherein the Forum directed for issuance of the certified copies. But the respondents have not furnished the same.

¶30

Having regard to the fact that whenever a citizen applies for certified copy of a document, which is in the nature of public document, the authorities are under obligation to furnish the same, on usual terms. Since the documents sought for by the petitioners are public documents, the respondents are directed to issue certified copies of the said documents, if the applications filed by them are in proper form and after collecting the usual charges payable for the same.

¶31

With the above observation, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

A.GOPAL REDDY,J

Dated:05-10-2004

1 The District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District.

¶37

2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶38

3 Two C.Cs. to the Government Pleader for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (OUT)

¶39

4 Two C.D. copies.

Shaik Hussain, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Hussain, v. The District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Sahu, Vs Ntr University of Health Sciences

Pulla Raja Goud Vs The District Collector, Karimnagar District

Sri a.Nageswara Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Palaparthi Yesu S/o Bangaraiah Vs the District Panchayat Officer, Ongole

Mr.K.Kishore, Vs The Commissioner, Guntur Municipal Corporation

The Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., Vs The Commissioner of Labour