1. The crucial point for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to have certified copies of ‘pahanies’ and ‘Faisal patties’ in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 786 situate in Chilkoor village from the respondent viz., the Mandal Revenue Officer, Mohinabad Mandal, Rangareddy District. It arises thus: The petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject land for over fifty years as a tenant. He has also been paying land revenue therefore regularly. But, he lost the receipts in a fire accident that gutted his house. Therefore, he made an application to the respondent for the supply of ‘pahanies’ for the years 1950-55, 1960-65, 1970-75, 1980-85 and 1990-94 and ‘Faisal patties’ for the year 1956, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1993 relating to the subject land. Then, he was informed by the proceedings dated 31-3-1995 that certified copies cannot be furnished on the ground that the, said land is classified as “Khareej Khata” (Government land). Hence the writ petition.
2. Sri P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner projects the point at issue with reference to, the provisions of Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short “the Evidence Act”), Section 167 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short “the Revenue Act”) and Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in hand and Pettedar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for short “the Record of Rights Act”). Section 74 of the Evidence Act enumerates the public documents. “Documents forming the acts or records of the acts of the public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of any party of India or of the Commonwealth, or of a foreign country” are included in Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 74. It cannot be denied that the respondent is a public officer. There are innumerable decisions of various High Court for the proposition that the records maintained by revenue officers relating to land revenue, survey and settlement etc., are public documents. There is no dispute that ‘pahanies’ and ‘faisal patties’ are maintained by the respondent. There cannot, therefore, be any hesitation to hold that they are public documents.
3. Section 76 of the Evidence Act enjoins a duty on every public officer having the custody of a public document of furnish a certified copy of the same to any person, who has a right to inspect the said document. It also provides the method and manner of preparing certified copies. In the present case, we are concerned only with the duty of a public officer to issue certified copies and the right of a person to ask for such copies, it is well settled that the question whether any person has a right to inspect any document is outside the scope of the Evidence Act. Thus, the right of the petitioner to seek certified copies of ‘pahanies’ etc., is not an absolute one, but dependent on his right to inspect the said documents. He has to, therefore, necessarily establish his right referably to any statute, rule or regulation for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 76 of the Evidence Act.
4. Now, let us examine whether Section 167 of the Revenue Act and or Section 7 of the Record of Right Act confer any such right on the petitioner.
5. Section 167 of the Revenue, Act reads as under:
“167. Inspection of Maps, Survey Records and Village Accounts and granting copies thereof:— Subject to such rules and after taking such fees as the Government may prescribe by notification, settlement records, all maps and village accounts shall be open to the inspection of the public and copies and extracts thereof may be given.”
6. Section 7 of the Record of Rights Act reads as under:—
“7. Inspection And Copies of The Record of Rights:—Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, the record of rights shall be open to the inspection of the public at reasonable hours of any charge and certified copies thereof or certified extracts therefrom “shall be given to all persons including the credit agencies” applying for the same on payment of such fees as may be prescribed.”
7. It is clear to my kind that the above provisions not only cast a duty on the respondent to keep the village accounts and the record of rights etc., open to the inspection of public but also confer a right on the public to obtain certified copies of the same.
8. As already noted, the petitioner has been refused certified copies on the ground that the land in question is classified in the revenue records as government land. Neither Sec. 167 of the Revenue Act nor Sec. 7 of the Record of Rights Act make any distinction between a government land and/or a private land. This is obviously for the reason that the legislature intended to provide an opportunity to one and all to have particulars of any land, irrespective of its classification and/or ownership.
9. The petitioner claims to have some interest over the land in respect of which he has sought certified copies. May be, it is classified as government land in revenue records. It is not the request of the petitioner to issue him certified copies after altering the classification of the land. Issuance of certified copies of the original record relating to the land in question will not alter the character of the land. Nor, will it create any right in favour of the petitioner thus, there can be no objection whatsoever for furnishing him the required certified copies. In view of the above, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to have certified copies of the documents he has sought for.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to furnish certified copies of the ‘Pahanies’ and ‘faisal patties’ to the petitioner as sought for by him, on payment of usual fees or charge.
11. No costs.