Dismissed

M.M.Pappu v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Kerala HC28 Jul 2015Crl.Rev.Pet/892/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Kerala reviewed a Sub-divisional Magistrate's order directing a Panchayat to remove a dangerously slanting coconut tree. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that tying ropes was sufficient, affirming the permanent necessity for removal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, upholding the order directing the Panchayat to remove the coconut tree.

M.M.Pappu Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 892 of 2015 ()

¶6

MC 261/2014/D(D-4121/14) of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, FORT KOCHI

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶8

M.M.PAPPU, AGED 75 YEARS S/O. MATHU, MAMPILLY HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O. NJARAKKAL VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 505.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ PETITIONER & STATE :

¶11

1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE FORT KOCHI-682 001.

¶12

2. K.R.JOSEPH

¶13

S/O. RAPHEL(LATE), KUZHUVELIL HOUSE, NJARACKAL ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 505.

¶14

3. THE SECRETARY NJRACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NJARACKAL P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 505.

¶15

4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶17

R1 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIBU.P.THOMAS.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

STU

¶20

K.HARILAL, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

Crl.R.P.No.892 of 2015

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ==== Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2015

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The revision petitioner is the respondent in the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 9.2.2015 initiated under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent herein. The grievance projected in the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent is that a coconut tree standing in the property of the petitioner is slanting towards the house of the 2^nd respondent in a dangerous manner and coconut from the above tree falls down on the residential house and the land in between the fencing and the residential house.

¶26

On receipt of the complaint, the 1^st respondent called for a report from the Village Officer and the Village Officer has reported that the allegation in the complaint is true and the coconut tree is slanting over the residential

¶27

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.892 of 2015

¶29

building of the 2^nd respondent in a dangerous condition. Pursuant to the said report, the 1^st respondent issued a conditional order under Section 133(1) of the Cr.P.C directing the petitioner to straighten the coconut tree by tying with a rope within a period of 25 days. Thereafter, the petitioner entered appearance and the present petitioner was also impleaded in the proceedings and the matter was heard. After considering the report of the Village Officer and the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, the court below directed the 3^rd respondent to take proper steps to remove the dangerous coconut tree invoking jurisdiction and power under Section 238(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The legality of the said order is under challenge in this revision petition .

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments assailing the findings whereby the 1^st respondent

¶32

¶33

Crl.R.P.No.892 of 2015

¶34

found that the coconut tree is slanting in a dangerous position so as to cause eminent danger to the life of the 2^nd respondent. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has already straighten the coconut tree by tying ropes. So, there is no chance of eminent danger to the life of the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

Per contra, the 2^nd respondent himself entered appearance in person and contended that the slanting coconut tree will cause eminent danger to the life of the 2^nd respondent and his family and the coconut from the coconut tree often falls down so as to cause danger to the property and the life of the family members.

¶36

Going by the impugned order, it is seen that the Village Officer filed a report stating that the coconut tree is slanting over the roof of the 2^nd respondent's house in a dangerous position and that may cause eminent danger to the life and property of the 2^nd respondent and his family members. In the light of the above report, though the 1^st

¶37

Crl.R.P.No.892 of 2015

¶38

¶39

respondent passed a conditional order under Section 133 of the Cr.P.C, after taking evidence and hearing both parties, the 1^st respondent has passed final order vacating the interim order and directing the 3^rd respondent to take proper steps to cut and remove the coconut tree invoking power under Section 238(b) of the Cr.P.C.

¶40

Going by the proceedings as well as the submissions at the Bar, indisputably, it is seen that the coconut tree is slanting over the property and residential building of the 2^nd respondent and the coconut may fall down over the residential building as alleged in the complaint. Even though the petitioner submits that the dangerous situation can be abated by straightening the slanting coconut tree by tying with the rope, I am of the opinion that the same is not a permanent remedy. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the report filed by the Village Officer. In the absence of any material contrary to the admitted fact that coconut tree is slanting in a dangerous situation causing eminent danger to

¶41

Crl.R.P.No.892 of 2015

¶42

¶43

the life and property of the 2^nd respondent, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under challenge.

¶44

Therefore, this revision petition is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly.

¶45

Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE.

¶46

stu

¶47

//True copy//

¶48

P.A to Judge

M.M.Pappu v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M.Pappu v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

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

Nayas.P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar Vs L.Nagesh

L.Vasantha Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Ropoz Vs Varkey Alias

Jayakumar Vs Devi Vilasam Sangham

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala