IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24979 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- 1. SRI.ABDULLA, S/O.ATHIMANNIL ABDUL RAHIMAN, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI.MUHAMMED, S/O.KAINIKKARA MOIDEEN HAJI, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SRI.SHAKTHI PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NARUKARA VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24979/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.883/2011 DTD.3.2.11. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.1925 DTD. 28.2.11. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD.6.5.11. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.5.11. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.8.11. EXT.P6(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24979 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be the owners of 4 acres and 12 cents of property situated in Sy.No.2/2 of Narukara Village. According to the petitioners, though the property is a dry land and is a rubber estate, in Ext.P3 possession certificate, the land has been shown as paddy land. According to the petitioners, not only that the said entry is factually erroneous, but also is against Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Village Officer himself. Therefore, seeking rectification of the aforesaid alleged mistake, petitioners have filed Ext.P6 application before the respondent. Orders have not been passed. That is one grievance in the writ petition. 2. Yet another grievance highlighted is the delay on passing orders on Ext.P6(a) for a fresh possession certificate. In the nature of the controversy, orders on Ext.P6(a) will have to await orders on Ext.P6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition itself directing the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 in the light of the documents produced by the petitioners and as expeditiously WPC No. 24979/11 :2 : as possible at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that if he deems it appropriate, it will be open to the respondent to conduct an inspection of the site as well. Once orders on Ext.P6 is passed, Ext.P6(a) application made by the petitioners for a fresh possession certificate shall also be considered and orders thereon will be passed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp