IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9601 of 2009(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ R.VIJAYAN,AGED 68 YEARS,S/O.RAMAN, SAJEEV MANDIRAM,PERAYAM CHERRY,THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE UMAYANALLOOR.PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER,CHIRAKKARA. 5. J.SUMATHY, VARUVILA VEEDU,THAZHAM(SOUTH) CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R5 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9601/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT 20.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT I N FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 31.12.2007 IN O.S.NO.50/2002 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.309/1999 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE M.M.COURT, PARAVUR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 22.1.2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 10.2.2009 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.2.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9601 OF 2009 (U) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Though notice has been served by special messenger, there is no appearance on behalf of the 5th respondent. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, an order passed by the 3rd respondent informing that in view of the pendency of AS No.137/08 before the District Court, Kollam, the request made by the petitioner for a possession certificate and location sketch cannot be entertained. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the litigations mentioned was a case of boundary dispute and Exts.P2 and P3 judgments are referred to in support thereof. 3. Irrespective of the controversy that is involved in the suits, if as stated by the petitioner he is in possession of the land, he is entitled to have a certificate to that effect. Similar is the case with location sketch also. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and directing that fresh orders shall be passed in the light of the WPC 9601/09 :2 : application made by the petitioner for a possession certificate and location sketch. Orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp