IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13071 of 2005 Between: Smt. Gummala Pavana Kumari … Petitioner AND The State of A.P., rep., by its District Collector, Kadapa & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri S.V. Bhatt Counsel for the respondents: GP for Revenue This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13071 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. In short, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is two fold, namely, that respondent No.2 is not issuing certified copy of 1-B extract on the ground of non-mentioning of the purpose for which the copy is sought and that he is seeking to dispossess him from the extent of Ac.4.97 cents in Sy.No.606/2 of Devamachupalli Village, Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District, without following due process of law. The petitioner claimed that in recognition of her longstanding possession of the abovementioned land, the then Mandal Revenue Officer of Chitvel issued proceedings dated 10.11.1998, which is purported to be a proceeding for confirmation of the petitioner’s possession of the said land. The petitioner alleged that when she made a representation to respondent No.2 to issue certified copy of 1-B extract pertaining to Khatha No.372 of Devamachupalli Village, he rejected the same by endorsement dated 04.05.2005. Questioning this endorsement, the petitioner filed this writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed. A perusal of the endorsement shows that the petitioner’s request was rejected on the ground that she failed to mention the survey numbers for which 1-B copy was required and also that she has not indicated the reason for which she is seeking supply of a copy. Having carefully considered the contents of the endorsement, I am of the view that the reasons for rejection of supply of a copy, which is undoubtedly a public document, do not appear to be relevant and reasonable. The petitioner already indicated in her application, as evident from the endorsement itself, the Khatha number. If respondent No.2 was disabled from supplying a copy on account of non-mentioning of survey numbers, he could have called upon the petitioner to furnish necessary details regarding the survey numbers. Instead of doing so, he rejected the petitioner’s application. As regards the ground of non-mentioning of purpose for which the copy is sought, it is not incumbent upon the petitioner to mention the purpose of seeking supply of a public document. For these reasons the impugned endorsement is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and supply a copy of the document applied for. If any additional information is required by respondent No.2, he shall call upon the petitioner to furnish the same. Respondent No.2 (presently Tahsildar) shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As regards the grievance of the petitioner regarding the attempt of the respondents to dispossess her from the land in question, it is needless to observe that they cannot dispossess her, without following due process of law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16590 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.06.2008 ES