IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4556 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THOMAS P.O., S/O.ABRAHAM THOMAS, AGED 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT HILLVIEW NAGAR, POOCHIRA, PUDUPPARIYAM, PALAKKAD-678 733. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE PUDUPPARIYRAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678 733. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HEAMAMBIKA NAGAR POLICE STATION, HEMAMBIKA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 733. 3. K.P.RAMANKUTTY, SOUPARNIKA, HILLVIEW NAGAR, POOCHIRA, PUDUPPARIYARAM, PALAKKAD-678 733. R1 BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SRI.A.V.RAVI. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALAGOPAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4556/2011 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1226/01 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE SON OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 3/2/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.31/1/2011 PASSED BY THE PUDUPPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6/02/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TREES IN THE PROPERTY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 26/05/2010. R1(B): COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PUTHUPARIYARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DTD. 03/07/2010. R1(C): COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO. B3-6770/10 DTD.26/08/2010. R1(D): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 14/09/2010. R1(E): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14/12/2010. R1(F): COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING IN WRITING BY THE PETITIONER. R1(G): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.B3-6770/10 DTD. 3/12/2010. R1(H): COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.B3 6770/10 DTD. 13/01/2011. R3(A): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY ME BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R3(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON 26/082010 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 4556 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Exts.P2 and P3. The further prayer is for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 and hear the petitioner before passing any order affecting the petitioner's right in the property having an extent of 6.50 cents in Re-survey NO.441/5 of Puduppariyaram Village wherein he is living on. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are neighbours. According to the 3rd respondent two coconut trees standing in the aforesaid property are slanting in such a position towards his property creating nuisance and at the same time posing threat to his life and also the lives of his family members. Earlier, to avert the said nuisance the 3rd respondent had approached the second respondent by filing Ext.R3(a) complaint on 26.5.2010. The subsequent developments would reveal that the petitioner was required to take steps to avert the nuisance. However, according to the third respondent the petitioner has not taken appropriate steps and that constrained him to approach the authorities again and pursuant to which Ext.R1(c) was issued by the first respondent intimating the petitioner that in case of his failure to WPC No.4556/2011 2 take steps as agreed upon further coercive steps under section 238 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1995 would be taken. Subsequently, Ext.Rf1(g) dated 30.12.2010 was also issued to the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P3. The property in question actually belongs to the son of the petitioner. As per Ext.P2 notice dated 3.2.2011 the petitioner was required to cut and remove the coconut trees that is slanting over the roof of the 3rd respondent's residence. It carries a further warning that in case of his failure to cut and remove them they would be cut and removed at the expense of the Panchayat and the expenses would be recovered from him in accordance with law. According to the petitioner Ext.P2 was issued not in accordance with law and before directing him to cut and remove the trees, he was not afforded with an opportunity to take appropriate steps to avert the nuisance. I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot heard to contend like that. Obviously, the issue started as early as on 26.2.2010 when the 3rd respondent take up his grievance before the second respondent. True that at that point of time the petitioner was asked only to avert the nuisance and there was no specific instruction to cut and remove the coconut trees. Ext.P5 series of photographs of the coconut trees in question WPC No.4556/2011 3 produced b y the petitioner are self speaking. In the light of Ext.P5 series also, the contention of the 3rd respondent that the trees stand in such a manner to pose threat to himself and his family members cannot be said to be without any basis. No one can be asked to live ignoring such threat to his life. In such circumstances the 3rd respondent was perfectly justified in approaching the danger. Evidently, it was after considering all the aspects and in the light of the relevant provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act that the first respondent passed the impugned orders requiring the petitioner to cut and remove the trees. The petitioner cannot contend that the said action on the part of the first respondent is an action which is beyond the jurisdiction. It is in fact, within the jurisdiction and as such a decision was taken after taking into account of all the aspects of the the issue as is evident from Ext.P2, Exts.R1(a) and R1(h). In the said circumstances, I am of the view that Exts.P2 and P3 invites no interference. There is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge