IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23507 of 2007(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAHUMA BEEVI, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL RAZAK, A.R.MANZIL, VANDITHADAM KARAVARUM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUVARUM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT , PIN-695 605. 3. ABDUL KARIM, S/O.SAYED MUHAMMED, SHAMMEEM MANZIL, NEAR MAVELI STORE KILIMANOOR P.O., (PIN : 695 601), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (ADDRESS CORRECTED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.1128/08 DATED 04.06.09). R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.TEK CHAND R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC : 23507/07 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLLAINT DATED 9.5.07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.010959 DATED 9.5.07. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.92/07 DATED 8.6.07 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 23507 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The dispute in this writ petition is between the petitioner on the one hand and the 3rd respondent on the other. The 3rd respondent has a rubber estate adjacent to the residential property of the petitioner. Petitioner complains that the leaves and other fall out from the trees cause nuisance to the petitioner and some of the trees are standing in such a dangerous manner that they cause imminent threat of danger to the life and property of the petitioner. Petitioner has filed Ext.P1 petition before the 1st respondent herein detailing her grievances. According to the petitioner, the same was referred to the 2nd respondent for his report, who has submitted Ext.P3 report, which according to the petitioner, is in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner s complains in this writ petition that although Ext.P3 report of the Village Officer is dated 08.06.07, the 1st respondent has not passed any orders in the matter. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. to call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P3 and to WPC :23507/07 -:2:- issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to tabate the nuisance and mischief caused by the 3rd respondent, by ordering cutting and removal of trees overhanging the petitioner's building and property located in Re-survey Nos.45/1-2 and 43/3 of Karavaram Village and covered by Ext.P3 report; ii. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to implement its acti0on immediately through the 2nd respondent by cutting the overhanging trees, branches, lops, etc., causing nuisance and mischief to the petitioner and her properties by cutting and removing all the trees standing at the western and eastern boundaries of the petitioner's property;” 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. The counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader submits that in respect of a boundary dispute between the petitioner and 3rd respondent, a suit is pending before the Civil Court in which the 3rd respondent has obtained an injunction order against the petitioner from trespassing into his property. I am of opinion that, the same would not stand in the way of the 1st respondent exercising his statutory duties, if conditions for such exercise exist. Even if for exercising that statutory duty, the injunction order would be an impediment, it is for the 1st respondent to consider the same in accordance with law and pass an order. WPC :23507/07 -:3:- Whatever that be, after having received Ext.P1 and obtained Ext.P3 report from the Village Officer on Ext.P1, the 1st respondent has to pass final orders in the matter expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take a final decision on Ext.P1, considering Ext.P3 report of the Village Officer and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb