Abdul Jabbar vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 5426 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                       WP(C).No.28978 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER/S:

      1         ABDUL JABBAR,
                AGED 55 YEARS,
                S/O.ABDU HAJI,
                VALIYAKATH HOUSE,
                ENGANDIYOOR,
                CHAVAKKAD,
                THRISSUR - 680 616.

      2         SUNEESH EBRAHIM,
                AGED 48 YEARS,
                S/O. P.P EBRAHIMKUTTY,
                PARATHU VEETTIL,
                KANDALIYUR P.O,
                CHETTRA,
                THRISSUR - 680 616.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.P.SANJAY
                SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
                SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
                SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
                SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM
                SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
                SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY
                SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.


RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA,
                REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF, GOVERNMENT,
                SECRTARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

      2         VADANAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                VADANAPALLY,
                THRISSUR P.O. 680 614,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
 W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2020
                                             2

            3              THE SECRETARY,
                           VADANAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                           VADANAPALLY,
                           THRISSUR P.O 680 614

            4              V.N MOHAN SANKAR,
                           VAYAKATTIL HOUSE,
                           GANESHAMANGALAM,
                           VADANAPALLY,
                           THRISSUR P.O. 680 614

                           R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

                           SMT.G.RANJITA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2020
                                                3




                               W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2020
                           --------------------------------------------
                                      JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition

concerns the nuisance caused to them on account of the over

hanging branches of a tree standing in the property owned by of

the fourth respondent adjoining to their residential property. In

terms of Ext.P4 order, in exercise of the power under Section

238(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the second

respondent Panchayat has directed the fourth respondent to cut

and remove the overhanging branches of the tree. As per the said

order, the petitioners were permitted to cut and remove the

overhanging branches, if the fourth respondent fails to cut and

remove the same. Ext.P4 order was however, revoked later by the

third respondent, the Secretary of the second respondent in terms

of Ext.P6 order on the premise that the same contravenes the

interim order passed by this court in F.A.O. No.162 of 2020. The

petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P6 order. According to them, the

interim order referred to above has nothing to do with Ext.P4

order.

W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2020

2. When this matter was taken up, the learned counsel

for the fourth respondent conceded that the interim order passed

by this court in F.A.O No.162 of 2020 has nothing to do with Ext.P4

order. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the fourth

respondent that the fourth respondent has no objection in the

petitioners cutting and removing the over hanging branches of the

tree referred to in Ext.P4 order without causing any inconvenience

to him.

3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed

granting liberty to the petitioners to cut and remove the over

hanging branches of the tree referred to in Ext.P4 order without

causing any inconvenience to the fourth respondent.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

Mn W.P.(C) No.28978 of 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 2904/2017 DATED 28-07-2017

EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE FINAL VERSION PREPARED BY THE ARCHITECT

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-10-2020

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS C5-5011(1)/20 DATED 30-11-2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08-12-2020

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. B5/1251/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09-12-2020

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN FAO 162/2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 03.02.2020.