IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2310 of 2011(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.K.KURIAN, S/O.KURUVILA KARAKKAL, KEEZHVAIPUR P.O., MALLAPPALLY WEST, PATHANAMTHITTA-689587. 2. SOSAMMA KURIAN, W/O.KURIAN, KEEZHVAYPUR P.O., MALLAPPALLY WEST, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 587. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANICKAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 585. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MALLAPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 584. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2310 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners, who are the owners of the properties having an extent of 4.25 acres of land comprised in Sy No.472/1B3 of Anickad Village covered by documents bearing No.2140 and 2141 of 1982 of Mallappally SRO, wanted to carry out certain quarrying operations therein. In view of the objections stated as raised from the part of the neighbours, petitioners were constrained to approach this Court earlier for compelling the statutory authorities concerned to consider the request for granting necessary license and other reliefs; whereby the District Collector was directed to consider the matter. 2. It is however stated that the title of the petitioners was disputed and in the circumstances, the District Collector arrived at a finding contrary to the rights and interests of the petitioners which was challenged by them by filing O.P. No.1273/1989. Ext.P1 judgment was rendered setting aside the order passed by the District Collector, holding that the District Collector had no W.P (C) No. 2310 of 2011 2 jurisdiction to determine the validity of the documents or to declare the proprietary rights of the petitioners and the petitioners were relegated to approach the Civil Court. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, O.S No.219/1995 was filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla which, however, happened to be dismissed. Being aggrieved of the same, petitioners preferred A.S No.29/2001 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta and the said appeal was allowed which was taken up in appeal at the instance of the respondents by filing R.S.A No.1054/2007, where interference was declined by this Court. It is stated that the matter is pending consideration before the Apex Court by way of S.L.P. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court is no reason for the respondents to deny the request of the petitioners to issue 'possession certificate' to the petitioners in respect of the properties covered by its title deeds. Learned counsel also makes a reference to Ext.P10 issued by the 2nd respondent, copy of the W.P (C) No. 2310 of 2011 3 application bearing the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent stating that request cannot be acceded to, in view of the pendency of the SLP before the Supreme Court. There is no case for the respondents that any prohibitory orders have been issued by a competent court of law with regard to the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioners. In the said circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the refusal to issue the possession certificate, location sketch and plan as sought for by the petitioners is justified in any manner. 5. In the above circumstances, the endorsement made by the 2nd respondent on Ext.P10 is set aside and the respondents are directed to issue possession certificate along with location plan and sketch as sought for; subject to the satisfaction of the requisite fees prescribed in this regard. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the issuance of the possession certificate shall however be subject to the final verdict to be passed by the Apex Court in the SLP W.P (C) No. 2310 of 2011 4 stated as pending. 6. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 2 for taking further steps. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANCDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No. 2310 of 2011 5 P.R.RAMACHANCDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No. 2310 of 2011 6