Namadi Divakar Tataram Ambedkar vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1739 AP

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

                  WRIT PETITION No.13761 of 2019

ORDER

Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri

T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

2. The petitioner is seeking an order in the nature of writ of

mandamus questioning the inaction of the respondents 3 and 4 in

uploading and issuing the digitally signed adangal and 1-B copies to him

in respect of the lands in S.No.313/6, S.No.313/9 and S.No.313/8E of

Vilasa Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District, as arbitrary, illegal

and violative of principles of natural justice and for consequential direction

to the respondents 3 and 4 to upload and issue these documents.

3. The petitioner and the 5th respondent are brothers. There

appears a dispute in between these brothers in O.S.No.134 of 2012 on the

file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram

relating to certain lands set out in the plaint schedule therein. This suit

was decreed by judgment dated 06.09.2016. An appeal against this

decree and judgment is stated to be pending in A.S.No.59 of 2016 on the

file of the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, East Godavari

at Amalapuram presented by the 5th respondent against the petitioner.

4. This civil dispute has nothing to do with the present Writ

Petition.

5. The petitioner approached the revenue authorities for issuance

of adangal and extract of 1-B register as digitally signed copies by his MVR,J W.P.No.13761 of 2019

application dated 16.01.2017 bearing No.20174-6996168. It is also the

claim of the petitioner that though he has retrieved copies of Adangal and

1-B extract, they did not bear digital signatures of the issuing authority

and therefore, once again he made an application on 19.08.2019 through

Spandana programme of the Government. His grievance is that even it

was not attended to. This inaction on the part of the respondents 3 and 4

the petitioner is now questioned in this Writ petition.

6. The petitioner had sought similar documents by his application

referred to above in the year 2017 as well as on 21.03.2013. The

endorsement of RDO, Amalapuram with reference to his application dated

21.03.2013 was that the original pattadar passbook and title deed were

filed in O.S.No.134 of 2012 and necessary action would follow in

compliance with the orders of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

7. Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to

these facts and circumstances strenuously contended that the

respondents 3 and 4 though are duty bound to furnish these copies, their

wanton reluctance is the cause for the petitioner to approach this Court

now, and this deliberate inaction requires to be corrected by interference

through a direction in the nature of a writ as requested.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader referring to their detailed

counter, supported the action of respondents 3 and 4.

9. Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the 5th

respondent, while referring to the nature of dispute between these

brothers, justified the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in this context.

MVR,J W.P.No.13761 of 2019

10. Now, the point for determination is-"Whether the action of the

respondents 3 and 4 in refusing to issue digitally signed adangals and 1-B

extract to the petitioner is proper and justified?

POINT:

11. The request of the petitioner is quiet innocuous and simple. It

is for issuance of certain records maintained by the office of respondent

No.4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is

not the office of the 3rd respondent that maintains these records. The

reluctance or rather abstinence on the part of the 4th respondent not to

attend to the request of the petitioner on the face of this situation is bad.

In the sense, these are the documents maintained by these public

authorities in regular course of their official duties and business. They

partake the character of public documents. In such an event, law clearly

permits issuance of copies of these documents duly certified. Earlier,

physical form of documents (hard copies) used to be issued on the

application of the concerned and at times by third parties also. Now they

are being uploaded into the official website of the department concerned

and free access is also available to secure unattested and unsigned copies

of these document. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has utilized such facility

for the purpose of his suit and apparently they were considered by the

learned trial Judge as seen from the judgment, a copy of which is on

record.

12. Pendency of litigation or civil suit between the parties, cannot

be a reason for the 4th respondent or 3rd respondent to refuse to grant

these copies. A simple request, on account of the unnecessary reluctance

on the part of the respondents 3 and 4, had driven both these brothers to MVR,J W.P.No.13761 of 2019

approach this court. Whatever be the nature of the dispute in between

them, it should not have been considered by the respondents 3 and 4.

Therefore, in the circumstances, the justification sought to be offered by

the learned Assistant Government Pleader and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakara Rao,

learned counsel for the 5th respondent, of the action of the respondents 3

and 4, is not proper.

13. In the above circumstances, finding that the petitioner is

entitled for such copies as requested, this writ petition has to be allowed

issuing necessary direction sought.

14. In the result, this writ petition is allowed directing the

respondents 3 and 4 to upload and issue digitally signed adangal and 1-B

copies to the petitioner in respect of the lands in S.No.313/6, S.No.313/9

and S.No.313/8E of Vilasa Village, Inavilli Mandal, East Godavari District,

as are available now. For this purpose the petitioner is permitted to file

fresh application through 'mee seva' within a week from now and upon

receiving such application, the respondent no.4 shall comply with such

request within a week therefrom. The 5th respondent is also permitted to

apply for similar copies to the 4th respondent if he is so advised. The

observations in this order shall not have any effect in the civil dispute

between the petitioner and the 5th respondent. No costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Interim Orders, if any, stand vacated.

________________________ JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA Dt:25.03.2021

Note: Issue C.C. by 27.03.2021 B/o RR MVR,J W.P.No.13761 of 2019

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA

WRIT PETITION No.13761 of 2019

Dt:25.03.2021

Note: Issue C.C. by 27.03.2021 B/o RR MVR,J W.P.No.13761 of 2019