IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2011 / 4TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 16810 of 2011(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THANKAMMA MATHAI, W/O. LATE MATHAI, VAVELIL HOUSE, MEENACHIL KARA AND POST, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.PIN-686 001 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.PIN-686 001 3. THE DISTRICT COLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.686 001 R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.16810/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT'S POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 16/7/05 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/5/11 OF ADVOCATE JAMES THOMAS AT THODUPUZHA COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. P3 COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 2/6/11 FORWARDED TO 1ST RESPONDENT AND ALSO TO 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 16810 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of 30 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.679/1 of Meenachil Village. According to the petitioner, apart from this, petitioner also owns two other items of properties. In respect of the 30 cents of property mentioned above, petitioner made an application to the 2nd respondent for a possession certificate. According to the petitioner, that application was not entertained on the ground that in respect of the properties owned by the petitioner's husband and her son, there are attachments in force. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, in respect of the property owned by her, there is no attachment in force, there is no reason why the request of the petitioner for possession certificate shall not be entertained. 3. In that view of the matter, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent will pass orders on Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner complaining WPC No. 16810/11 :2 : of the above. This the 1st respondent shall do at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp