Remanded

P.Raman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisionalmagistrate

Kerala HC14 Dec 2012Crl.Rev.Pet/775/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court set aside an order under Section 133 CrPC requiring removal of a bamboo grove. The matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for a fresh enquiry and decision after inspecting the property. Fresh orders must be passed within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 19.03.2012 set aside; matter remanded for fresh enquiry, inspection, and fresh orders within one month.

P.Raman Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisionalmagistrate — Partition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 775 of 2012 ()

¶6

CMP.5/2011 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,TIRUR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER IN CMP:

¶8

P.RAMAN PUTHANYIL HOUSE, POTHANNUR DESOM, KALADY VILLAGE PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.C.GOPI

¶10

RESPONDENTS/I^st RESPONDENT &COMPLAINANAT IN CMP:

¶11

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676 001

¶12

2. K.V.GOPALAN NAIR, ACHUTHANIVAS,

¶13

POTHANOOR, POLPAKKARA P.O., PONNANI TAULK MALAPPURAM DIST-679 576

¶14

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKUAM

¶16

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL

¶17

SRI.K.S.MENON (K)

¶18

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI LIJU V. STEPHEN

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

SKV

¶21

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 775 of 2012

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶24

A1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.02.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

Crl. R.P.No.775 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2012

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petitioner is the respondent in proceedings under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, initiated at the instance of the 2^nd respondent before the I^st respondent. The complaint of the 2^nd respondent before the I^st respondent was that, the bamboo grove standing in the property of the petitioner is causing danger to the life and property of the 2^nd respondent and others residing in the respondent's house. The first respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate, passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to remove the bamboo grove. It is stated in the order that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had inspected the property and found that cutting and removing the bamboo grove are necessary since, it is a threat to the second respondent's property. One of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that although the petitioner received Annexure A1 notice for inspection, the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not actually inspect the site. The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to get instructions on the same from the Sub

¶33

Crl. R.P.No.775 of 2012

¶34

¶35

Divisional Magistrate yet.

¶36

I am not inclined to go into the controversy, since the

¶37

second respondent has no objection in the Sub Divisional Magistrate passing fresh orders after conducting a fresh enquiry, inspecting the property as well. In the above circumstances, I set aside the impugned order dated on 19.03.2012 of the I^st respondent and remand the matter to the I^st respondent for a fresh enquiry and decision. If the Sub Divisional Magistrate finds it necessary to conduct a site inspection, notice shall be given to both parties and conduct the site inspection as well. If the parties desire to adduce evidence they shall be given an opportunity to do so. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

The Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE /TRUE COPY/

¶40

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶41

SKV

P.Raman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisionalmagistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Raman v. the Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisionalmagistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.P.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Kunjan Vs State of Kerala

Kottappadikkal Unnikrishnan Vs the S.I. of Police

K. Kallyani Vs State

Sibichan Vs State of Kerala

Jeeja Bai Vs P.Mohanan