Allowed

Jessy Jose v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC29 Jul 2015WP(C)/5868/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking execution of a panchayat order directing a neighbor to cut a dangerous teak tree. The Court directed the panchayat to hear parties and execute the order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent panchayat to consider the representation and execute the order to remove the tree within two weeks.

Jessy Jose Vs the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2015/7TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5868 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JESSY JOSE, W/O.JOSEPH SCARIA, NELLICKATHERUVIL (H), HOUSE NO.III/87-A, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

-------------------------

¶11

1. THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, RAMAPURAM BAZAAR (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 576.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, RAMAPURAM BAZAAR (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 576.

¶13

3. DANTYCHAN LUKOSE, S/O.K.M.LUKOSE, KOOTTAKALLIL, RAMAPURAM BAZAAR (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 576.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 5868 of 2015 (G)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29-09-2014 BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶21

EXT P2 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-10-2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶22

EXT P3 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-11-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶23

EXT P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P3 REPRESENTATION.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P(C) No.5868 of 2015

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29^th day of July, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is seeking a direction to the 2^nd respondents to consider Ext.P3 representation and to execute Ext.P2 order passed by the panchayat.

¶35

The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are neighbours. The petitioner alleges that one teak tree in the property of the 3^rd respondent which is leaning towards her house and its huge branches are causing threat to her life and property. Therefore, she submitted Ext.P1 representation before the President of the 1^st respondent. After conducting enquiry, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P2 order directing the 3^rd respondent to cut and remove the tree.

¶36

As the 3^rd respondent has not complied with Ext.P2 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 2^nd respondent seeking to execute Ext.P2. However, the same was left unheeded. It is with this background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶37

WP(C)5868/15

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

Though notice has been issued to the 3^rd respondent, he did not turn up.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶41

It appears from record that on the basis of Ext.P1, the 1^st respondent has conducted an enquiry and on satisfying that the apprehension of the petitioner is genuine, directed the 3^rd respondent to cut and remove the teak tree as per Ext.P2. However, the same has not been implemented so far. The respondent is duty bound to implement the same.

¶42

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent panchayat to consider Ext.P3 representation after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties and to execute Ext.P2 order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶44

krj

Jessy Jose v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Jose v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laila Vs P.Vijayan

Jabeena Hamid Yafi Vs Arun Rangan

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer

Sebastian A.J. Vs State of Kerala

Emil B.K. Vs the Secretary, Rta, Erankulam

P.Ali Vs Southern Railway