IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16266 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- INDIRA VIJAYAN, KARAVALLIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, ORIPRUM MURI, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKARA-5. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, CHENGANOOR. 2. K.P.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, KAMALA NIVAS, ORIPRUM, CHENNITHALA P.O., MAVELIKARA. R1 BY SHRI K. RAMESH GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1- PHOTOGRAPHS OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.1.2010 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8.2.2010 BY THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY. EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT's EXT.P5(A TO C)-TRUE COPY OF REPORT, MAHAZAR & ROUGH SKETCH EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 13.4.2010 ISSUED BY R1 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 16266 of 2010-G - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner herein and her husband are the co-owners of the property comprised in R.S.No.86/5-10 of Chennithala Village having a total extent of 4.86 ares and a small house therein. The property of the second respondent is on the northern side of the petitioner's property. On the southern boundary of the second respondent's property a coconut tree is remaining in a very dangerous condition, according to the petitioner. The petitioner apprehends that the same will cause damage to her property. Therefore, seeking for appropriate action in the matter, she had approached the Panchayat and the Panchayat, as per Ext.P3, issued a notice to the second respondent to cut and remove the coconut tree in question, within seven days. It is alleged in the writ petition that the same has not been complied with by the second respondent. The petitioner has thereafter moved the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P4, to initiate action under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the Revenue Divisional Officer may be directed to take action on Ext.P4 in accordance with law. wpc 16266/2010 2 2. In view of the urgency shown by the petitioner, it is up to the Revenue Divisional Officer to initiate action on Ext.P4 as enjoined by law, with notice to the second respondent. Appropriate action will be taken expeditiously. It is up to the petitioner to seek urgent orders in the matter, before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/