IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 16972 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SREENIVAS, PUTHIYADATHU VEEDU, MELADI AMSOM, KEEZHUR DESOM, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PAYYOLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE DT. 2. K.P. VINODAN, S/O. GOPALAN, KINATTUMKARA VEEDU, MELADI AMSOM, KEEZHUR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DT. ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN FOR R1 SMT. THUSHARA SRI. B. KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 16972/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT. 15-10-2007. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 28-12-2007. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 16972 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 2nd respondent are neighbours. A coconut tree slanting dangerously towards the petitioner's property and building causes threat to the petitioner, is the grievance raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The petitioner approached the Panchayat in the matter as also the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. However, the Panchayat and the Ombudsman were satisfied that the petitioner's grievance can be redressed by tying the coconut tree with steel wires. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P2 order passed by the Ombudsman in this matter. Relying on Ext. P3 photographs of the coconut tree, the petitioner submits that the coconut tree is slanting very dangerously towards the petitioner's property and therefore it needs to be cut down. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take effective steps, forthwith, to cut and remove the coconut tree dangerously slanting towards the Northern boundary of the petitioner by modifying Ext. P2 order, enabling him to carry on with the construction works.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in which he disputes the claim of the petitioner. According to the 2nd respondent, the tree can be cut down as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, only if the tree is in danger of falling down immediately. According to the 2nd respondent, there is no danger of the tree falling down at all and therefore Ext. P2 order is just and proper in the circumstances. 3. I am not inclined to go into the legal nuances of the issue. From Ext. P3 photographs of the coconut tree produced by the petitioner the correctness of which is not disputed by the 2nd respondent , it is very clear that the tree slants across the compound W.P.C. No. 16972/08. -: 2 :- wall in between the two properties. In fact, it slants very much into the petitioner's property. The 2nd respondent has no right to have his tree in his neighbour's property. Therefore, it has to be cut down. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent-Panchayat to see that the coconut tree in question is cut down immediately, the expenses for which shall be recovered from the 2nd respondent. This shall be done within two weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/