SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Cal) 34

DILIP KUMAR BASU
ANIL KRISHNA PAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.MUTSUDHI, D.P.MAJUMDAR, GOPAL CHAKRAVARTHI, GOUTAM DIRGHANGI, SANJUKTA BHATTACHARYA, UDAYAN CHAKRABORTY

DILIP KUMAR BASU, J.


( 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 t











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top