IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 27TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4224 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAMANAN, S/O. CHAKKANDAN SANKARAN, EANGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THRISSUR. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VATANAPPILLY POLICE STATION. VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EANGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. MR. MADHAVAN, S/O. KOCHIKKARAN MAMU, EANGANDIYOOR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4224 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner herein is the petitioner in M.C.No.302/2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur in a proceeding initiated under Section 133 Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petition was filed against the 4th respondent. The complaint was that the branches of the “Ini Tree” belonging to the fourth respondent is dangerously leaning towards the petitioner's house and the branches of the tree is causing danger to the lives and properties of the petitioner and therefore it is necessary to cut and remove them. 3. After assessing the reports of the Revenue Authorities, Ext.P2 conditional order was passed by the first respondent. It is stated that the fourth respondent was continuously absenting himself in spite of being served with the conditional order and subsequent notices were issued were not responded and the order was made absolute on 16/11/2007. In spite of same there was no response from the fourth respondent. Hence the petitioner filed a petition before the 1st respondent to execute the W.P.(C)No.4224 of 2010 2 order put by him on 16/11/2007. On that petition 1st respondent put an order to obey the order within ten days of receipt of the order put by him on 13/3/2008. Copy of the order was served upon the respondents 2 and 3 to see that the order is executed. Ext.P4 is the copy of the order. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no response from the respondents 2 and 3. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that after Ext.P4 was issued the petitioner has not approached the first respondent so far. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 is the copy of the petition filed under Section 141(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Section 141(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows:- “If such act is not performed within the time fixed, the Magistrate may cause it to be performed, and may recover the costs of performing it, either by the sale of any building, goods or other property removed by this order, or by the distress and sale of any other movable property of such person within or without such Magistrate's local jurisdiction and if such other W.P.(C)No.4224 of 2010 3 property is without such jurisdiction, the order shall authorise its attachment and sale when endorsed by the Magistrate within whose local jurisdiction the property to be attached is found.” 6. Therefore it is up to the first respondent to take an action on Ext.P5 in accordance with the above provision. Appropriate action will be taken after notice to the fourth respondent also. The action will be finalised within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment for compliance. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj