IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15880 of 2005 Between: K.A. Sattar, S/o. Abdul Aziz, R/o. Post Office Street, Ranigunta, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : O R D E R At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 05-05-2005 by which respondent No.1 rejected the request of the petitioner for supply of certified copy of order dated 13-11-1987 passed by Settlement Officer, Nellore. The petitioner claims to be interested in certain properties in Survey No.425/1 of Settipalle Village. He claimed that when he approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Urban Tirupathi, Chittoor District for issuing of pattadar passbook, he was informed that the Settlement Officer, Nellore passed an order under Section 11(a) of the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in the name of one G.Munuswamy Setty. He claimed that as he is interested in the said property, he wanted to know the contents of the said order and accordingly, he applied to respondent No.1 for supplying a copy of the order passed by the Settlement Officer. The said application has been rejected by the impugned endorsement. Having considered the reasons given by respondent No.1, I am of the view that none of them can be sustained in law. Assuming that the petitioner was not a party to the enquiry, as he claimed to be interested in the property, respondent No.1 ought not to have rejected the application of the petitioner on that ground. The document in respect of which the petitioner sought for a certified copy is a public document and I do not see any justification for respondent No.1 to refuse to supply the same. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to furnish a certified copy of order dated 13-11-1987 passed by the Settlement Officer, Nellore in S.R.No.65/11(a)/83 CTR, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated 20th June, 2008 vrn