IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 21968 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A.KRISHNAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O AYYAPPAN, PARAPPIL HOUSE, KATTIKUNNU KARA, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.JOBI JOSE KONDODY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. N.C. SUKUMARAN, DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMBU VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. ABDUL RAHMAN, BABU MANZIL, KATTIKUNNU KARA, CHEMBU P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C). NO.21968/2008-M: *ADDL.R7 AND R8 IMPLEADED: 7. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE.P.O., KOTTAYAM. 8. SRI. T.K. SUBHASH KUMAR, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, THALAYAZHAM.P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM. *ADDL.R7 AND R8 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 24/09/08 IN I.A. NO.12141/08 IN W.P.(C).21968/08. R1 TO R3, R5 & ADDL.R7. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K. RAMESH, R6 BY ADVS. MR.P.A.KUMARAN, SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, ADDL.R8 BY ADV. MR.SANTHARAM.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.21968/2008-M: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE R.6 BEFORE THE R.5. DTD. 27/06/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE KACHEET DTD. 09/06/2008 HANDING OVER THE FALLEN TREE TO MRS. THILOTHAMMA (THE 14TH WARD MEMBER). EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE KACHEET DTD. 02/07/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.5. VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MAHAZZAR PREPARED BY THE R.5. DTD. 02/07/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH FAMILY MEMBERS BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21968 of 2008-M - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is running a small tea shop which is being conducted on the side of the 5th respondent’s office. There was a mayflower tree standing on the back side of the village office which was in a dangerous position to the petitioner’s property as well as the neighbouring property of the 6th respondent who was complaining about the same apprehending severe damage, if the tree falls down. On 8.6.2008 the tree fell down to the compound wall of the 6th respondent causing damage to the compound wall. He submitted a representation before the 5th respondent requesting to cut and remove the fallen tree, in order to construct the compound wall. It appears that he had informed the Tahsildar in the matter who did not take any action. This led to various complaints on the part of the 6th respondent and representations have also been filed. One of such representations, is produced as Ext.P1. As nobody was taking any action, under a kychit the petitioner took the tree upon the directions of the 6th respondent, on 2.7.2008. A mahazar was also prepared which is produced as Ext.P4. The tree is having a length of 620 cms. and width of 308 cms. The expenses for wpc21968 /2008 2 cutting and removal of the tree, according to the petitioner, was met by the 5th respondent Village Officer. It was kept in the side of the tea shop in the compound of the petitioner. Since various disputes in the matter did not attain a finality and as the tree is kept in the premises of the petitioner, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking to issue various directions. The petitioner prays that the kychit may be revoked and the tree may be taken back by the official respondents. 2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. The stand taken is that the tree was cut and removed without any prior permission of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar submitted a detailed statement to the District Collector on 8.7.2008 recommending departmental action against Shri T.K. Subash Kumar, Village Officer. It is reported by the Tahsildar that a forged mahazar was also prepared by the said Village Officer. A local enquiry was conducted through the Deputy Tahsildar (Inspection) who gave a detailed report stating that the tree in question was already sold to the petitioner. According to the Tahsildar, the local enquiry shows that there had been illegal transactions in which the petitioner has also connived. A second report was filed before the District Collector, Kottayam to take disciplinary action against the erring officials. It is the contention of the Tahsildar that the petitioner also approached the Tahsildar stating that he wpc21968 /2008 3 has purchased the tree for a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the Village Officer. It is mentioned that the petitioner has stated that he has utilized part of the same for using as firewood. 3. The Village Officer is said to have been placed under suspension. What is mentioned in para 10 of the counter affidavit is that 26 small pieces of firewood have been kept in the back side of the petitioner's tea shop. Therefore, taking back of the remaining portion of the small pieces of tree is not practical, as the entire tree cannot be replaced now. The market value of the tree has to be assessed through the Forest Department. It is also mentioned that a police (vigilance) enquiry was also recommended by the Tahsildar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be relieved of the obligation to keep the items in his property as it is being deteriorated and he cannot be made answerable for the same. The disciplinary action and the vigilance enquiry may take much more time to complete. The respondents will have to take an appropriate decision as regards the request of the petitioner to relieve him from the terms of kychit. 5. Therefore, the Tahsildar will take up the matter on the request made by the petitioner with the District Collector and thereafter the District Collector will take appropriate action in the matter. It is not clear from the wpc21968 /2008 4 pleadings as to the present stage of the disciplinary action against the Village Officer. Therefore, the entire action as directed above, to consider the pleas raised by the petitioner, will be finalized within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/