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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 18469

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
VENUGOPAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 43633 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.V.S.NAMPOOTHIRY

Public authorities must act proactively to remove hazards on municipal property posing risks to individuals.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ mandamus to remove a dangerously standing tree, arguing it posed a risk due to decayed roots and threatened electric lines. The court found that the tree stood on municipal property and directed the concerned authorities to act swiftly within two months as per municipal regulations.

Result: The court ordered the removal of the tree.

Table of Content
1. authority to remove hazards. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. action mandated within stipulated timeframe. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court with the following reliefs :-

i] Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to 5th respondent to take action to cut and remove the dangerously standing tree as directed in Exhibit P6 Letter and recover the expenses incurred from the owner through revenue recovery proceedings, after following due procedure.

ii] Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to respondents 3 to 7 to ensure that the nuisance and danger caused by the dangerous tree is removed by taking appropriate action as mandated by law.

2. Petitioner is the owner of a property in Resurvey No.23/1 of Block No.153 of Thiruvalla Village. Petitioner alleges that a wild jackfruit tree stands near to the compound wall of the petitioner’s property and since its roots are decayed, it poses serious danger. It is also alleged that branches lean towards electric lines as well. Despite various attempts, there was no relief and the tree stands dangerously on the property of the Municipality. Petitioner contends that under Section 412 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994, power is vested with the Secretary to direct cutting and removal of the tree.

3. During the course of the pendency of the writ petition, a report of the Village Officer was sought. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the report revealed that the tree stands on Municipality property.

4. The Municipality has submitted that it has no objection in cutting and removing the tree, in the light of the report submitted by the village officer/6th respondent.

In view of the above, there will be a direction to the 5th respondent to cut and remove the tree standing on the property of the Municipality and overhanging into the petitioner's property, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

sd/-

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 Back to top