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) 29677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
USHA – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR & CHAIRMAN DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16368 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MAHESH V.MENON
For the Respondents: DEEPA, DEEPA NARAYANAN, T.SETHUMADHAVAN

A writ of mandamus may be issued directing statutory authorities to exercise their legal duties and conclude pending proceedings regarding hazardous trees after providing a fair hearing to the concerned parties.

Headnote:The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to cut and remove trees in the respondent’s property that were allegedly endangering the petitioner’s life and property. The court observed that statutory proceedings (Ext. P4) had already been initiated by the local municipal body, and the core dispute centered on the management of these dangerous trees. The main issue was whether the court should intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings concerning hazardous trees on private land. The court held that since the local authority had already issued a notice, the appropriate course of action was to direct that authority to conclude the pending proceedings after providing a fair hearing to all relevant parties. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the local authority to conclude the proceedings within one month from the receipt of the judgment, following a mandatory hearing of the affected parties.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks judicial intervention for the removal of dangerous trees. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court directs statutory authority to conclude proceedings with due process. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus, such other writ or order or direction to the Respondents No 1 to 4 respondent to take immediate steps to cut and remove the mango tree and coconut tree standing in the 5th respondents property which causing danger to the petitioner’s life and property;

ii. Dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents iii. Issue any such other writ, direction or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trees situated in the property of the 5th respondent is dangerously leaning towards the building of the petitioner and the same is in a dangerous condition. The petitioner approached the statutory authorities to cut and remove the trees. As per Ext.P4, the petitioner was informed by the Panchayat that a notice is issued to the 5th respondent. Even then, there is no further proceedings is the grievance.

Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Panchayat. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the 5th respondent. If the 5th respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 5th respondent is free to file a review petition before this Court.

4. Admittedly Ext.P4 proceedings is initiated by the

4th respondent. The Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted that, when an attempt was made to cut and remove the trees, that was disputed by the petitioner. I don’t want to make any observation about the same. Since, Ext.P4 is already issued, the 3rd respondent can conclude the proceedings, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following directions:

1. The 3rd respondent is directed to conclude the proceedings and do the needful based on Ext.P4 proceedings, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

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