High Court Of Calcutta
DILIP KUMAR BASU
ANIL KRISHNA PAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
C. O. 5053 (W) Of 1986
Decided On : 02/05/1988
PUBLIC NUISANCE - BENGAL MUNICIPAL ACT, 1932 - SS. 449(2)(B), 452, 453, 454, 455 - COCONUT TREE - REMOVAL - JURISDICTION OF WRIT COURT - DISPUTE BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES - PUBLIC INTEREST - INACTION OF MUNICIPALITY.
Fact of the Case:
A coconut tree, growing on the property of respondents 6 and 7, was causing damage to the petitioner's building and endangering the safety of the petitioner, passers-by, and other members of the public. The petitioner requested the respondents 6 and 7 to remove the tree, but they refused. The petitioner then approached the Municipality (respondents 2 and 3), who issued notices to the respondents 6 and 7 to remove the tree. The respondents 6 and 7 resisted the Municipality's efforts to remove the tree, and the Municipality eventually refused to take any further action.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the coconut tree was a public nuisance and that the Municipality had a duty to remove it. The Court also found that the respondents 6 and 7 had no right to obstruct the Municipality from removing the tree.
Issues: 1. Whether the coconut tree was a public nuisance. 2. Whether the Municipality had a duty to remove the tree. 3. Whether the respondents 6 and 7 had a right to obstruct the Municipality from removing the tree.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A coconut tree that is causing damage to property and endangering the safety of the public is a public nuisance. 2. A Municipality has a duty to remove public nuisances. 3. Private citizens do not have the right to obstruct a Municipality from removing public nuisances.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Municipality to remove the coconut tree within a week and ordered the respondents 6 and 7 to pay the costs of the proceeding.
( 1 ) A Coconut Tree, some times, becomes source of living of a citizen, but, it sometimes, becomes a subject matter of protracted litigation. Instant writ application is a dispute on a coconut tree and petitioner has come to this Writ Court challenging inaction of South Dam Dam Municipality i. e. respondents 2 and 3 under Ss. 449 (2) (b), 452, 453, 454 and 455 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, though apparently this petition is directed against the respondents 2 and 3 but for all practical purposes, petitioner is aggrieved against respondents 6 and 7, refusing to remove a coconut tree which was allowed to grow in the lands of respondents 6 and 7 but adjacent to petitioner's boundary walls, causing damage to the building of the petitioner, particularly walls of chilekotha, due to constant dashing by the said coconut tree, endangering life and properties of the neighbours and passers-by members of public.
( 2 ) PETITIONER's contention is that the coconut tree is likely to fall at any moment causing damage to the property and loss of lives to the members of the public and also to the members of the petitioner's family. Petitioner requested respondents 6 and 7 to remove and/or to cut the said tree so that it could not hit petitioner's building causing damage thereon but no steps were taken at the instance of respondents 6 and 7. Petitioner was compelled to approach the local municipality i. e. respondents 2 and 3 and respondents 2 and 3 causing an inspection of the said premises and directed the respondents 6 and 7 to cut down the said tree withins days from the receipt of the said notice. Respondents 6 and 7 did not comply with the notice dtd. 7th Oct. , 1982, issued by the said Municipality and again on, 7th Dec. , 1982, respondents 2 and 3 served a notice directing respondents 6 and 7 to remove the said coconut tree. As the respondents 6 and 7 did not oblige Municipal Authorities, petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 180/- as charge for removing the said tree and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount on 7th April, 1983, with the Municipality. On 8th April, 1983, Municipality Authority went to the premises to cut down the said coconut tree from the top so that it cannot hit the building of the petitioner but due to resistance from respondents 6 and 7, Municipal Authority could not remove the said coconut tree. On 30th April, 1983 Municipality asked for Police help to the Officer in charge, Lake town Police Station for cutting down the said tree. On 4th May, 1983 at 10 a. m. , the Municipal Authorities and the Police Officers were resisted by the respondents 6 and 7. On 4th May, 1983 respondent 7 filed art application under S. 144 of the Cr. P. C. before the Executive Magistrate, Barrackpore, alleging the possibility of breach of peace in the area and the case was registered as MP Case No. 381 of 1983 and ultimately on 4th July, 1983. Police Authorities submitted a report before the learned Executive Magistrate, and considering the report the said case was filed by an order dt. 5th April, 1984. On 16th/17th April, 1984, Municipal Authorities again sent their Officers to cut down the said coconut tree (sic) by the respondents 6 and 7 and ultimately municipality became helpless and could not remove the coconut tree though Municipality was satisfied from the Inspectors' report that the coconut tree, standing within the premises of 6 and 7, should be removed in order to save life and property of the adjoining inhabitants and members of the public but the Municipal Authorities refused to take any further steps and requested the petitioner. to seek Court's help. Petitioner has thus come before this Court challenging order of the Chairman dt. February 7, 1986 in which petitioner was denied adequate relief by the Municipality.
( 3 ) APPEARING on behalf of the respondents 6 and 7, Mr. Dirghangi has admitted that the statement and/or allegations as regards factum of the existence of a coc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.