IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 17185 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MR.VASU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN RESIDING AT NARANATHU HOUSE, MUKALATHU PARAMBIL, KANGARAPADY, VADACODE.P.O., KOCHI-682021. 2. SUMATHI VASU, W/O. VASU, RESIDING AT NARANATHU HOUSE, MUKALATHU PARAMBIL KANGARAPADY, VADACODE.P.O., KOCHI-682021. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU SRI.T.G.KALADHARAN SRI.ELDHO K.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI. 2. VENUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 41, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, PALLANGATTU HOUSE, KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE, COCHIN-21. 3. MERCY JOHN, AKKRAPPATTY, KANGARAPPDY, VADACODE.P.O., KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI-21. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N SANTHOSH ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.17185 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 are neighbours. It seems that a dispute had arisen between petitioners on one hand and the 2nd respondent on the other regarding trees situated in the petitioners' property dangerously posed over the property of the 2nd respondent. It is contended that there was a settlement and later, the 3rd respondent purchased the property from the 2nd respondent. Dispute again arose between the petitioners and 3rdd respondent. Petitioners insisted that they will remove the trees standing on the eastern boundary of the petitioners property, but expenses will have to meet by the 3rd respondent. It is contended that there was an agreement on this issue, but later the 3rd respondent resisted from the same. The 3rd respondent later approached the RDO with a complaint that trees standing in the property of the petitioners posed a danger to her house and the inmates of the house. By Ext.P5 an order W.P ( C) No.17185 of 2009 2 was passed by the RDO requiring the petitioner to cut and remove those trees . The said order has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that 3rd respondent will herself cut and remove the trees which are posed dangerously over her property. But the timber can be retained by the petitioners . Learned counsel for the petitioners have no objection to this course of action. Parties shall act accordingly and on production of a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent Ext.P5 shall be modified in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.17185 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.17185 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.17185 of 2009 5