Writ petition filed regarding dangerous coconut trees. Court disposed of the petition upon submission that proceedings to cut and remove the trees have already been initiated.
Writ petition disposed of by recording the submission that proceedings to remove the trees have already been initiated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939
WP(C).No. 16231 of 2017 (D)
PETITIONER(S):
MOHAMMED YASIM MOHIYUDHEEN P.A., S/O.P.V. KUNHISEEDHI KOYA, AGED 28 YEARS, BARKKATH MANZIL, NEAR FIBRE FACTORY KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP.
BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP.
2. KUNHIKOYA, AOULAKANDHIYAPPADA HOUSE, KAVARATTI, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP.
3. K. NISSAMUDHEEN KOYA, DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP.
BY SRI.MANU.S, CGC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 16231 of 2017 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT-P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 27/12/1995 LAKSHADWEEP. |
CIRCULAR F NO. 13/21/95-LR OF ADMINISTRATOR OF |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT-P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 24/11/2014 |
COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT-P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE IST RESPON |
LAWYER NOTICE DATED 31/08/2015 DENT |
| EXHIBIT-P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE |
PHOTOGRAPHS |
| EXHIBIT-P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE |
ORDER DATED 19/02/2015 |
| RESPONDENT(S)' | EXHIBITS |
----------------------NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.16231 of 2017
Dated this the 14th day of June, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that two coconut trees standing in the property adjacent to his residential property is causing threat to his life and property. The second respondent is the owner of the property where the said trees are standing. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation to the third respondent requesting him to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the second respondent to cut and remove the trees which are in a dangerous condition. As per Ext.P5, the third respondent
W.P.(C) No.16231 of 2017 -2-
has turned down the request of the petitioner by directing him to settle the issue with the second respondent. In Ext.P5, it is also stated by the third respondent that one of the trees referred to by the petitioner is standing in the property of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, both the trees are standing in the property of the second respondent and that in so far as there is no dispute to the fact that the trees are in a dangerous condition, the third respondent is bound to initiate action against the second respondent under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is
-3-
W.P.(C) No.16231 of 2017
disposed of recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE
bpr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking direction to remove dangerous coconut trees be disposed of when authorities initiated proceedings.
MOHAMMED YASIM MOHIYUDHEEN P.A.
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP
KUNHIKOYA
K. NISSAMUDHEEN KOYA
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
