IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 1278 of 2011(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ANTONY.M.A., MOOZHIKKATTU HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA-686575. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTUCHIRA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686613. 3. THE SECRETARY, KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADUTHURUTHY.P.O., KOTTAYAM-686604. 4. THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, CHENGANASERRY KURIZHUMUTTIL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686613. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R4 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1278/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 17.2.2010 FILED BY THE PTITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: PHOTOS SHOWING DIFFERENT SCENES OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND THE TREES STANDING. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 22.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT 17.3.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF the REPRESENTATION DT 17.3.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26.3.2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT 26.5.2010 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 28.6.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 3.8.2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1278 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent is under challenge. 2. The issue raised in this writ petition is in relation to a mahagony tree situated in the property of the 4th respondent. The location of the tree is very close to the residential house of the petitioner and therefore petitioner submitted complaints to the Panchayat, which resulted in Ext.P3 notice by which the Panchayat required the 4th respondent to cut and remove the tree in question. 3. Complaining that the 4th respondent did not take any action on Ext.P3, petitioner moved the Revenue Divisional Officer by Ext.P4, and Ext.P5 complaint was also made to the Village Officer. It appears that the 1st respondent obtained Ext.P6 report from the Village Officer, which gave details of the tree in question. 4. Thereafter Ext.P8 notice of inspection was issued proposing to inspect the site in question on 2/7/2010. The inspection was postponed. Thereafter inspection was held on WPC No. 1278/11 :2 : 6/7/2010 when the petitioner was absent. Parties were heard and Ext.P9 order was issued. Ext.P9 order merely records the submission purportedly made by both sides to the effect that sufficient safeguards have been provided and that the over hanging branches have been cut ad removed. 5. Petitioner's present grievance is that even with the remedial action taken, the danger is not abated and therefore the Revenue Divisional Officer should conduct a fresh inspection and reconsider the matter. 6. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit contesting the claim of the petitioner. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent also in this matter. 7. Although it is a fact that on 6/7/2010, an inspection was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, there is nothing to indicate that such inspection was conducted with notice to the petitioner and it is the undisputed factual position that at the time of inspection, the petitioner was absent. Necessarily therefore, the petitioner lost his opportunity to point out the grievance to the Revenue Divisional Officer and it is based on such an inspection that the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P9 WPC No. 1278/11 :3 : order. I am inclined to think that in the facts of this case, the RDO should conduct fresh inspection with notice to the parties concerned and thereafter hear them and pass fresh orders. 8. In order to enable the RDO to do so, I quash Ext.P9. It is directed that inspection shall be conducted at any rate within 4 weeks and fresh orders in the matter shall be passed immediately thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp