IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2699 of 2009(U) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- MATHEW VARGHESE, EDAPPALLIMANNIL, VAZHAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2699 OF 2009 (U) ==================== Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that he applied to the 1st respondent for a location sketch and a plan in respect of his property covered by Ext.P1 possession certificate. It is stated that so far the same has not been issued and that on the other hand, 1st respondent has forwarded the application to the 2nd respondent seeking his clarification, as is evident from Ext.P3. 2. In my view, since all that the petitioner seeks is a location sketch and a plan, whatever be the purpose for which the same is applied for, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the application and do the needful in the matter. 3. In that view of the matter, the reference as per Ext.P3 was quite unwarranted. Therefore, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner for location sketch and plan about which reference is made in Ext.P3 and do the needful in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, 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