Allowed

T.K. Prakasan v. Additional Secretary to Government

Kerala HC23 Feb 2012WP(C)/1698/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for removal of a dangerous coconut tree leaning towards his building. Court recorded that Panchayat had directed the owner to cut the tree and issued a final notice. Court disposed of petition directing Panchayat to implement the decision within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 3rd respondent to implement the decision to cut and remove the coconut tree within one month.

T.K. Prakasan Vs Additional Secretary to Government — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/4TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1698 of 2012 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

T.K. PRAKASAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O KUMARAN, SMITHA BHAVAN, KUTHIYATHODE P.O. KODAMTHURUTH, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.VIJAI MATHEWS SRI.N.K.THANKACHAN SMT.N.RENJU

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

1. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF 'SUTHARYA KERALAM', KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001.

¶11

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA 688001.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY,

¶13

KODAMTHURUTH GRAMAPANCHAYATH, KODAMTHURUTH.-688533.

¶14

4. VIJAYANPILLAI,

¶15

KAROTH VEEDU, KUTHIYATHODE P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. 688533.

¶16

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMAD SHAFI.M BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN,SC BY ADV. SRI.E.RAMACHANDRAN BY ADV. SRI.R.UMASANKAR BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 1698 of 2012 (J)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1:COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOWS THE POSITION OF THE COCONUT TREE.

¶23

EXT.P2:COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29.12.2009. EXT.P3:COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.04.2010. EXT.P4:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY KERALA NIYAMASAHAYABHAVAN, KOCHI DATED 12.08.2011. EXT.P5:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE

¶24

KODAMTHURUTH PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 17.12.2011.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(c) No. 1698 OF 2012

¶31

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take appropriate action to ensure that the coconut tree belonging to the 4^th respondent mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3, situated allegedly in a manner causing danger to the residential building of the petitioner, is cut and removed within a time limit to be specified.

¶34

It is evident that, on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner, action was initiated by respondents 2 and 3 and the 4^th respondent was directed to cut and remove certain portion of the coconut tree which is allegedly leaning towards the terrace portion of the petitioner's building, and further to cut and remove the coconut tree itself after taking existing usufructus when it

¶35

was become ripe for harvest. The above decision was intimated through Ext.P3. Complaint of the petitioner is that

¶36

W.P.(c) No.1698/2012 -2-

¶37

inspite of such a decision taken as early as in January 2012, no further steps has been taken to implement the decision and the 4^th respondent is not obeying the directions issued by the Grama Panchayat.

¶38

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of 3^rd respondent had placed for my perusal a letter issued to the 4^th respondent directing to cut and remove the coconut tree within 15 days, otherwise it was informed that action will be taken as contemplated under Section 238 and 239 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

¶39

Inspite of service of notice from this court, the 4^th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance or to contest the matter.

¶40

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for 3^rd respondent that, the 4^th respondent has not taken any action challenging the decision of the 3^rd respondent. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that writ petition can be disposed of directing further action based on Ext.P3 and

¶41

W.P.(c) No.1698/2012

¶42

-3-

¶43

also on the basis of the letter issued to the 4^th respondent on 23-01-2012.

¶44

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing

¶45

the 3^rd respondent to take effective steps for implementation of the decision as stated above, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶47

AMG

¶48

True copy

¶49

P.A to Judge

T.K. Prakasan v. Additional Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K. Prakasan v. Additional Secretary to Government

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

Indus Towers Limited and Another Vs Ranjith Lal N.K. & Anor

Indus Towers Limited Vs Chavara Grama Panchayath

Indus Towers Ltd. & Another Vs Ezhome Grama Panchayath & Another

James Joseph Vs Mr.Manoj

Sujitha.Y Vs State of Kerala

Nandhu K. Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths