IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 33089 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, OORALI, ANKAMALI. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 2. ELSY JOHNSON, MOONJELI, VALAVAZHI ROAD, ANKAMALI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.33089 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order passed by the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, requiring him to cut and remove a jack fruit tree standing in a dangerous position vis- a-vis the neighbouring property. 2. I am not inclined to consider the correctness of Ext.P1 in these proceedings, inasmuch that Ext.P1 need only be treated as a tentative notice. The petitioner is at liberty to file objection against Ext.P1 and obviously the Revenue Divisional Officer can only proceed to pass a conditional order under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if he receives the objection raised by the petitioner. This is to enable him to defend his case under Section 138 of the Cr.P.C. The 1st respondent shall pass orders on the petitioner's objection, only after hearing the 2nd respondent. 3. Writ petition is disposed of as above. W.P.(C).NO.33089/08 :: 2 :: A copy of the writ petition shall be produced by the petitioner, along with the copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge