J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 5th day of August, 2022 The petitioner is a coolie worker residing in his own residence situated in a property comprising of

11.58 cents of land in Cherukavu Panchayat.

2. When the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 complaint against the 4th respondent for unauthorised construction of a toilet, the 4th respondent filed a complaint before the 2nd respondent stating that a Coconut tree and a Mahogany tree standing in the property of the petitioner are creating threat to the life and property of the 4th respondent.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the Panchayat authorities issued Ext.P3 notice requiring the petitioner to cut and remove trees standing in a dangerous position. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to Ext.P3 notice. The petitioner stated that no trees, Coconut tree or Mahogany tree standing in the property of the petitioner, are causing any threat to the

4th respondent.

4. The petitioner states that in spite of Ext.P4 reply, the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P5 calling upon the petitioner to participate in a hearing. The petitioner informed the Secretary to the Panchayat that the tree standing in the petitioner's property are secured now and those are not causing any threat to the 4th respondent or her building. Nevertheless, the Secretary to the Panchayat issued Exts.P7 and P9 notices which stated that the threat from the trees standing in the property of the petitioner is still subsisting. It is aggrieved by Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P9 that the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext.P4 reply is evasive, putting the blame entirely on the respondents. The fact that the trees are 25 years old and complaint is raised only now is not an acceptable explanation. Younger trees do not pose danger normally. Ext.P5 notice was issued for hearing both sides. The petitioner, but was inclined to avoid the danger posed by the trees involved. The petitioner took an obstinate stand blaming the respondents for alleged water pollution.

6. Ext.P6 reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory and could not be regarded as a permanent solution to thwart the danger to life and properties. Therefore, Ext.P7 notice was issued. Ext.P8 reply also does not provide a solution to the danger apprehended. Ext.P9 notice is legal and issued under proper authority and in compliance with statutory requirements.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

8. At the time of hearing, the petitioner produced Ext.P11 photograph which indicated that the petitioner had made certain arrangements for securing leaves and coconuts falling down.

9. In view of the measures now taken by the petitioner pending the writ petition, this Court is of the view that respondents 1 and 2 shall reconsider the matter afresh to ascertain whether there is any subsisting threat from the tree standing in the property of the petitioner to the 4th respondent.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among respondents 1 and 2 to re-assess the issue and ascertain whether there is any threat from the trees standing in the property of the petitioner, to the 4th respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the competent among respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. The interim order passed by this Court in this writ petition will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioner, till a decision is taken by the respondents pursuant to the direction as given above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/12.08.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 482/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 25.09.2004 ISSUED BY THE SRO RAMATTUKARA.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT