IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19658 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KOCHUMON C THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, CHAZHISSERIL HOUS, PEUMPAYIKKADU P.O. KOTTAYAM , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLELCTORATE, KOTTAYAM 2. THE TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM TALUK OFFICE KOTTAYAM. 3. THE GEOLOGIST MINING AND GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 19658 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 22nd July, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for a possession certificate with sketch and plan. The same is not being considered on the ground that the same is for the purpose of mining sand and as per the order of the District Collector, for that purpose, no possession certificate can be issued. The petitioner submits that he has a right to get possession certificate which cannot be denied on such grounds. He therefore seeks the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh sketch and plan and possession certificate of petitioner's property ignoring the directions of the 1st respondent. II. Call for the records relating to Exhibit P1 and issue a writ of certiorari and quash the same.” 2. The very same question was considered by me in Ext. P2 judgment, wherein, I have held as follows: “I have heard counsel on both sides in detail. I certainly appreciate the concern of the respondents in this matter. Certainly the threat to availability of potable water is a matter, which should engage the attention of the respondents, who are the officers responsible for the same. But for that the respondents cannot pass orders, which are not within their powers. An owner of a property certainly has a right to apply for possession certificate and site plan and also a right to apply for mining permit. Whether in view of the grim situation available in the locality where the land is situated permit should be granted or not is a matter which has to be decided by the appropriate authority, who is to issue such permit. However, the respondents cannot foreclose the right of the petitioners to apply for the permit itself by issuing directions to the Tahsildar and Village Officer not to issue possession certificate and site plan. What the respondents have to do is to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to prevent issue of permit. That they may do so. But for that purpose they cannot pre-empt the submission of application for permit itself by refusing to issue possession certificates and site plans. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioners have made out a case for granting reliefs in these two writ petitions. Accordingly, I direct the concerned Tahsildar and Village Officer to issue the possession certificate and site plan for W.P.C. No. 19658/2008 -: 2 :- which the petitioners have applied for. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” I am satisfied that the said judgment is applicable to the facts of this case also. Accordingly, I direct the concerned Tahsildar and Village Officer to issue the possession certificate with site plan for which the petitioner has applied, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.