IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 2614 of 2011(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- B.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, VISHNU BHAVAN,THENNOOR P.O.,PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PERINGAMALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PERINGAMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695563 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695033 3. THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 ADV. SRI.M.DINESH FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2614/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 14.8.2009 SENT BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 14.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.7.2010. EXTS. OF R1 EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPYOF THE SALE DEED NO.5896/1960 DT 7.7.1960. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLIANT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT 3.7.2009. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFICE, THENNOOR. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2614 OF 2011 (B) ===================== Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition pertains to the removal of an Anjili tree, which according to the petitioner is situated in his property while the respondent Panchayat asserts that it was situated in its property. It appears that the petitioner had obtained Exts.P1 and P2 orders enabling him to cut and remove the timber, but however, those orders were stayed by the Minister and that decision was communicated to him by Ext.P3. It was challenging Ext.P3 order, the writ petition was filed. 2. Irrespective of the validity or otherwise of Ext.P3 order, now it is disclosed by the 1st respondent that in respect of this very same issue, they have filed OS No.404/11 before the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad and that the said Court has passed an interim order of injunction restraining the petitioner from removing the Anjili tree. 3. Now that the Civil Court is seized of the issue,the only order that is required to be passed in this writ petition is to WPC No. 2614/11 :2 : relegate the parties to get their disputes agitated by the Civil Court and abide by orders that are passed by the said Court. Writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp