IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2009 / 16TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34860 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- RAMASWAMY, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 64 YEARS, AMBAZHAKATTIL, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERRY NO.II VILLAGE, VADAKKANCEHRRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR. 3. THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VADAKKANCEHRRY BRANCH, VADAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R3 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 34860 OF 2008 (Y) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that in respect of the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, he made an application to the 1st respondent for a possession certificate and that has been declined for the reason that revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated in respect of the property. 2. In my view, the possession certificate only certifies the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land covered by Ext.P1 and that possession is not altered by the pending revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, the pendency of the revenue recovery action, does not mean that the petitioner is not entitled to possession certificate as applied for by him. In view of this, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner for possession certificate in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp