THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4604 of 2006 Date: 23-09-2009 Between: Rambag Srinivas Goud … Petitioner And Govt. of A.P. and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.4604 of 2006 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents on the representations of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction, by way of Writ of Mandamus, to the respondents to issue the certified copy of original assignment orders/patta certificates. The case of the petitioner is that he is the resident of Pet Basheerbad Village, Ranga Reddy District and the legal hair of late R. Thirupathaiah, who was the original assignee in respect of certain lands assigned along with 35 other persons being landless poor to an extent of Acs.3.23 guntas each in Survey No.25/1 of Pet Basheerbad Village in the year 1954 by the then Tahsildar, Medchal Taluq. The names of the assignees were also shown as pattadars and possessors in the pahanies upto the year 1983-1984. Thereafter, their names were deleted and some other names were entered in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the original assignees filed an application before the District Collector, R.R. District on 15.03.1994 requesting him to take action under A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 and to restore the land to them. When there was no action by the District Collector, the assignees filed W.P. No.11113 of 1994 and that was disposed of directing the Joint Collector to enquire into the matter. During the enquiry, he found that the land admeasuring Acs.242.27 guntas in Survey No.25 of Pet Basheerabad village was classified as “Kancha”. Out of this Acs.160.30 guntas was assigned to 45 persons at Acs.3.23 guntas each by the then Tahsildar Medchal Taluk, by proceedings dated 01.12.1954 pattas were also granted to them and entries made in revenue records in the year 1960. It is further submitted that at the request of about 25 assignees, the Hyderabad District Collector granted permission under Section 58(a) of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act to sell the assigned land in Survey No.25/1, of Pet Basheerabad village and the same was sold out under a registered document dated 11.12.1965. Out of the land purchased by the Cooperative Industrial Estate, an extent of Acs.33.00 guntas was allotted by the said estate to private parties by means of registered allotment deeds dated 03.08.1979 and 06.08.1979. The original assignees and their legal heirs filed W.P. No.20900 of 1997 challenging the permission granted by the District Collector and sought to set aside the said permission and restore the land to the assignees since the land was inalienable. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.01.2000 holding that “the entire argument of the petitioners counsel proceeded on the assumption that the land assigned to the petitioners and/or their fathers, as the case may be, is subject to the condition of non-alienation, but he, in spite of persistent questioning by this court, could not and did not produce the original assignment orders, nor could he show any other documentary proof to show that the assignment was subject to the condition of non-alienation”. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent, Deputy Collector & Mandal Revenue Officer, vide representations dated 24.02.2000, 05.02.2001 and 13,08.2002 requesting him to furnish certified copies of original assignment orders. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 13.08.2002 expressed his inability to issue the orders since no file number was mentioned. Again the petitioner made another representation dated 14.08.2002 furnishing the relevant file number and since there was no response, he filed another representation dated 22.01.2005 with a request to furnish certified copies. But the 2nd respondent did not act on his representation. The 2nd respondent is statutorily bound to furnish the certified copies of the records held in his custody to safeguard and recover the immovable properties belonging to the citizens. Hence the present writ petition. No counter has been filed by the respondents. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that she got the instructions that the petitioner did not furnish the required information to the respondents for the purpose of issuing certified copies. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted the entire information as required by the respondents and in spite of furnishing the required information, the respondents are not issuing certified copies. The main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that though he made several representations to the respondent authorities requesting to issue certified copies, the respondents are not issuing the same and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner did not furnish the required information for the purpose of issuing the certified copies and the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had furnished the entire information as required by the respondents. In such a situation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to make afresh representation to the respondent authorities furnishing the entire information, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such a representation from the petitioner, the respondents are directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 23-09-2009 LSK