IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 13577 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KAMALAMMA, AGED 70 YEARS, K.P.8/73, KRISHNA MANGALAM, PANCHAYAT OFFICE LANE, PERROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SREEKANTH S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KUDAPPANAKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SUSEELA MATHEW, AZHAKATHU MANNIL, KRA-19, PANCHAYAT OFFICE LANE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR R2 BY ADV.D.KISHORE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPC.13577/08 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.1918300 DATED 18.4.08. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 19.6.02 SUBMITTED TO SECRETARY KUDAPPANAKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.109/08 DATED 15.4.08 ISSUED TO KAMALAMMA. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.3.08 IN PETITION NO.14/08 OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.13577 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner and the second respondent are neighbours. Petitioner is a senior citizen. The second respondent and her late husband put up a building in the neighbouring property. Later, one of the coconut trees standing near the boundary but in the property of the petitioner became a nuisance for the second respondent since coconuts and other droppings from the tree affected her building. Unfortunately, the matter was not resolved amicably. It went to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. This writ petition is filed challenging the decision of the learned Ombudsman to cut and remove the tree. 2.On hearing the parties, I wanted the learned counsel on either side to ensure that a peaceful resolution comes through between the petitioner who is 70 years of age and her neighbour, the second respondent. The building of the second WPC.13577/08 2 respondent has come long after the coconut tree started growing and the second respondent graciously agreed that she will spend for the felling of the tree. This is recorded. The order of the learned Ombudsman will be carried out accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that loss of a coconut tree would mean loss of a part of the livelihood of the petitioner, a senior citizen. The indication is that the second respondent may consider giving a small compensation to the petitioner. That is not to be generated by judicial orders. It should come from hearts full of compassion, which work only when there is love and cordiality. Therefore, this Court is not to express anything on merits on such matters. The order of the learned Ombudsman will be enforced in the light of what is stated above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.17/11.