Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J
T K PRAKASAN – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 1698/2012
Tree - Coconut Tree Removal - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act - Sections 238, 239 - The court directed the local Grama Panchayat to enforce its decision regarding the removal of a coconut tree posing danger to a property, underlining the provisions for local authority action against non-compliance.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner sought action against the 4th respondent for not removing a dangerous coconut tree as directed by the local Grama Panchayat, leading to a writ petition after inaction by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the Grama Panchayat's earlier directives for tree removal and emphasized the necessity for enforcement, ruling that the 3rd respondent must take timely action.
Issues: Whether the court could direct the local authorities to ensure compliance with their prior decision regarding the removal of the coconut tree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the local Grama Panchayat, under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, has the authority to enforce compliance with its decisions regarding public safety and environmental hazards.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of directing immediate implementation of the removal decision within one month.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action to ensure that the coconut tree belonging to the 4th respondent mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3, situated allegedly in a manner causing danger to the residential building of the petitioner, is cut and removed within a time limit to be specified.
2. It is evident that, on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner, action was initiated by respondents 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent was directed to cut and remove certain portion of the coconut tree which is allegedly leaning towards the terrace portion of the petitioner's building, and further to cut and remove the coconut tree itself after taking existing usufructus when it was become ripe for harvest. The above decision was intimated through Ext.P3. Complaint of the petitioner is that W.P.(c) No.1698/2012 -2-
inspite of such a decision taken as early as in January 2012, no further steps has been taken to implement the decision and the 4th respondent is not obeying the directions issued by the Grama Panchayat.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of
3rd respondent had placed for my perusal a letter issued to the 4th respondent directing to cut and remove the coconut tree within 15 days, otherwise it was informed that action will be taken as contemplated under Section 238 and 239 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act .
4. Inspite of service of notice from this court, the 4th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest the matter.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent that, the 4th respondent has not taken any action challenging the decision of the 3rd respondent. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that writ petition can be disposed of directing further action based on Ext.P3 and W.P.(c) No.1698/2012 -3-
also on the basis of the letter issued to the 4th respondent on
23-01-2012.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to take effective steps for implementation of the decision as stated above, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
