IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 2036 of 2008 ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19658/2008 DATED 22/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/NOT A PARTY IN THE WRIT PETITION: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A.P.CHACKO, ADACKAKALATHIL HOUSE, NATTASERIKARA, VADAVATHUR P.O., VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOCHUMON.C.THOMAS, CHAZHISSERIL HOUSE, PEUPAYIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O. KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.JOBY JOSE KONDODY R2 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2036 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 22nd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Sri.Joby Jose Kondody, learned counsel, appears for the first respondent. Smt.K.Meera, learned Government Advocate, is directed to take notice for respondents 2 to 4. (2) Since the issue involved in this writ appeal lies in a very narrow compass, by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis, the matter is taken up for final hearing, though the matter is listed for admission. (3) The first respondent in the writ appeal had made an application before the concerned authority for grant of a possession certificate showing the sketch and the plan. Since the request made by the first respondent was not considered by the concerned authority within a reasonable time and since there was a direction issued by the District Collector not to issue the possession certificate, the first respondent was constrained to approach this Court. W.A.No.2036 of 2008 2 (4) The learned Single Judge after referring to his earlier order passed in W.P.(C) Nos.17838 of 2006 and 17960 of 2006 disposed of on 21st July, 2006, has issued a positive direction to the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to the issue the possession certificate with site plan for which the petitioner/first respondent herein has applied, within a month's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. (5) The appellant who was not a party to the writ proceedings, with the permission of the Court, has filed this writ appeal. (6) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is some dispute with regard to the property in question for which the petitioner has applied for grant of possession certificate. Further, it is stated that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition ought not to have issued a positive direction to the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to issue the possession certificate and at the most, according to the learned counsel, the learned Single Judge could have directed the authorities to consider the application filed by the petitioner/first respondent herein in accordance with law, within a reasonable time. W.A.No.2036 of 2008 3 (7) The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent sought to justify the impugned order. (8) The admitted facts are: The first respondent herein has filed an application before the concerned authority for grant of possession certificate with a sketch and plan. The said application ought to have been considered by the authorities within a reasonable time. That could not be done in view of the orders passed by the District Collector in No.E10-50442/98 dated 15.12.2005 (referred to in Ext.P1). The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition could have set aside that order passed by the District Collector and could have directed the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to consider the request made by the petitioner/first respondent herein in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. (9) In that view of the matter, while partly allowing this writ appeal, we direct the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to consider the application submitted by the petitioner/first respondent herein without being influenced by the order passed by the District Collector in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the W.A.No.2036 of 2008 4 appellant and the first respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a month's time from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. (10) All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns