IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30601 of 2009(U) PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.SREEKUMARI, D/O.SARASAMMA, PARAMKIMAMVILA VEEDU, ERACHILAVUKKODE, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT NR.SREENIVASA TALKIES, BALLARI ROAD, SENDOOR P.O., KARNATAKA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VIKRAMAN NAIR (A.S.I.) MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, PONGAMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 5. ASOKAN, HEAD CONSTABLE, MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION, PONGAMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 6. SREEDHARA PANICKER MOHANDAS, SIVANANDAVILASATHU HOUSE, CHEMBANAKOD, PARAMBAL MURI, KULATHUMAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.SURESH FOR R6 SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R6 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS-R1 TO R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)NO.30601/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P1: True copy of the gift deed No.1711/80 executed by the petitioner's parents, dated 27.10.1980. Ext.P2: True copy of the judgment in A.S.No.73/99 passed by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara dated 03.04.2007. Ext.P3: True copy of the order passed in I.A. No.2569/07 in F.A.O. No.205/07 by this Honourable Court dated 21.01.08. Ext.P4: True copy of the complaint lodged by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 24.10.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITRS: NIL. KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 30601 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The petitioner seeks permission to remove the rubber trees which have already been cut and kept in the property. Learned counsel for the party respondent submits that the trees have been cut from the disputed area and in view of the civil dispute regarding the ownership of the property, permission may not be granted to the petitioner to remove the trees. Now that the trees have already been cut, if permission is not granted to remove the trees, the loss will not be reparable. Therefore, to safeguard the interest of both parties, we are of the view that permission has to be granted to the petitioner to remove the trees which have already been cut. 2. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the third respondent to render necessary protection to the petitioner to remove the rubber trees which have already been cut, but not removed. The third respondent will W.P.(C) NO. 30601/2009 2 also keep a record regarding the quantity (weight) of the rubber trees thus removed by the petitioner. The necessary expenses in that regard will be borne by the petitioner. We make it clear that the permission granted shall not be understood as conferring any right on the petitioner to cut and remove such trees. Those matters are to be decided by the civil court. If ultimately it is found that the petitioner does not have any right to remove any such trees, she will be liable to indemnify the party respondent, of course, subject to and depending on the orders passed by the civil court. In the event of any obstruction in working out the order as above, the police will render adequate and effective protection to the petitioner for removal and transportation of the trees. We also make it clear that no further trees shall be cut by the petitioner without obtaining orders from the civil court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 30601/2009 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.P.(C)NO.30601/2009 JUDGMENT 11th November, 2009 W.P.(C) NO. 30601/2009 4