Kerala High Court
Pradeep Kumar V.P vs Konni Grama Panchayath on 29 May, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.6675 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
PRADEEP KUMAR V.P
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR, THANNERPANDALIL VEEDU,
MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 691.
BY ADVS.
R.RENJITH
MANJUSHA K
M.T.SURESHKUMAR
N.BIJA KRISHNA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KONNI P.O.PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 691,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY,
KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,KONNI P.O.
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 691.
*3 DELETED: RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR,
AGED 73 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN NAIR,
PAURNAMI, MAMMOODU, MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE,
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
2
KONNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691.
RESPONDENT NO.3 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY
AS PER ORDER DATED 18/3/2025 IN WA 464/2025.
4 VASANTHA RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 67 YEARS
W/O RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR PAURNAMI, MAMMOODU,
MANGARAM MURI, KONNI VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691.
5 ADDL.R5: MANOJ R NAIR,
ADVAITHAM, KIZHAVALLOOR, KINNI, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT - 689691. (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 06/12/2023 IN IA 1/23)
BY ADVS.
RAJEEV V.K.
V PHILIP MATHEWS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
AMIT RAWAL, J.
1. There is a dispute between two neighbors
ie., the appellant/petitioner Sri.Pradeep Kumar and the
party respondent. Both have been making allegations
against each other regarding the illegal constructions.
Four(4) writ petitions were filed and decided by a common
judgment. Writ appeal is preferred only against Ext.P4 order
dated 07.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.6675 of 2020, whereby the
Panchayat had directed the appellant - petitioner to cut the
bamboo trees within a period of seven(7) days.
2. Learned Single Judge after having noticed
the rival contentions, in paragraph Nos.20 and 21, observed
as under:
20. Now coming to the second issue - the alleged
illegal constructions carried out by the respective
petitioners, Sri. Radhakrishnan Nair points out that Sri.
Pradeep Kumar V.P had constructed a shade for his
window which protrude into his property. There is a
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
finding in Ext.P8 to the effect that the shade which has
been constructed, in excess of 60 centimeters requires to
be demolished. Similarly, as regards the constructions of
Sri. Radhakrishnan Nair, there is a further direction to
remove the unauthorized constructions which protrude
into the property of Sri. Pradeep Kumar V.P. However, this
Court notices that essentially the dispute between the
respective parties was with reference to the existence of
the bamboo tree as afore noticed. Insofar as this Court
has already issued a positive direction to cut and remove
the bamboo tree cluster, this Court hopes that wisdom will
prevail on the respective parties and they will definitely
come to an amicable settlement between them.
21. 21. So as to facilitate the above, Ext.P8 in W.P.
(C) No.9610/2020, which is also produced as Ext.P5 in
W.P(C) No. 9981/2020 would stand set aside.
3. Though with regard to protruding of the
shade, as alleged by the other side in paragraph No.20, the
Court did not give any findings but confined it to the
bamboo trees. While disposing of the writ petition, had
directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to hold a discussion
between the respective parties to arrive at an amicable
settlement in view of the removal of the bamboo cluster.
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
contended that the stamp papers for amicable settlement
had already been purchased. But, has an apprehension that
at the moment if the appellant - petitioner cut the trees, the
respondent will not come up for amicable settlement.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
party respondent submitted that the photographs reveals
that the bamboo trees are overgrown and are protruding
into the property, causing hindrance for light and air and
also causes inconvenience during the spring season.
6. Learned counsel for the Secretary of the
Panchayat submits that they will convene the meeting.
7. We are of the view that, a quietus would be
brought between the private parties only if, firstly, there is
an amicable settlement with regard to the allegation and
cross allegation of alleged illegal construction. In the
meantime, instead of cutting the entire cluster of bamboo
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
trees, the appellant - petitioner will trim the protruding
branches within a period of one(1) week from today and
make a video of that, which will be monitored by any officer
deputed by Secretary of Panchayat. The Secretary is
directed to hold a discussion with regard to settlement
between the parties. Liberty is granted to revive, in case
some contrary is done on behalf of either of the parties.
This writ appeal stands disposed off.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S.
JUDGE
nak
2025:KER:37229
WA NO. 464 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P2 TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2
Exhibit P3 TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P3
Exhibit P4 TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4
