Allowed

Raveendran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC4 Jul 2018WP(C)/5642/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pursuant to a petition for mandamus seeking implementation of a Tree Committee order to cut and remove a standing tree threatening life and property, the court directed the relevant respondents to execute the order at the earliest.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third and fourth respondents and the first respondent to implement Ext.P5 decision taken by the Tree Committee of the third respondent Panchayath at the earliest possible.

Raveendran Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5642 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAVEENDRAN, AGED 64, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, LEKSHMI NIVAS, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

	1.	THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
		OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.
	2.	THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, KOONTHALLOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695304.
	3.	THE KIZHUVILAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KIZHUVILA, MUDAPURAM (P.O.)-695304, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
	4.	THE SECRETARY THE KIZHUVILAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KIZHUVILA, MUDAPURAM (P.O.)-695304, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
	5.	VASANTHI.C., AGED 69, D/O.CHELLAMMA, VARADHANAM, KOONTHALLOOR, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYINKEEZH (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695304.
		R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T. BHASKAR R3 & R4 BY SMT.SIKKY RAVISANKAR, SC
mbr/		THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No. 5642 of 2018 (E)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶14

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1/5/2017 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5/6/2017 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14/7/2017 SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27/9/2017 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES 1 AND 2 OF MINUTES OF 'TREE COMMITTEE', KIZHUVILAM PANCHAYAT DATED 23/12/2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23/1/2018 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶15

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------

¶16

/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶17

mbr/ 06.07.2018.

¶18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 5642 OF 2018

¶20

Dated this the 04^th day of July, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

¶23

the following reliefs:-

¶24

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the fourth respondent to execute Ext.P5 order at the earliest, at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the third respondent to take immediate necessary steps to execute Ext.P5 order, thereby remove the threat to life and property of petitioner and his family at the earliest, at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶26

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to take necessary actions to see the execution of Ext.P5 order at the earliest, at any rate within a time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court; and

¶27

(iv) Such other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

From the tenor and terms of the pleadings

¶29

made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 5642 of 2018 2

¶31

is seeking implementation of Ext.P5 order passed by the Tree Committee of the third respondent Panchayath to cut and remove a tree standing.

¶32

Having perused the pleadings and the documents on record and hearing learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the third and fourth respondents to implement Ext.P5 decision taken by the Tree Committee of the third respondent Panchayath, if the same is not interdicted by any court of law or any other statutory authorities, at the earliest possible.

¶33

This writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶34

sd/-

¶35

SHAJI P. CHALY

¶36

DCS

Raveendran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

P.P.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Sebastian Vs Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram Grama Panchayat

Sunil George Vs Mulavukadu Grama Panchayath

T.A. Wilson Vs the Secretary, Edavanakkad Grama Panchayat`

P.E.Sreedevi Vs the State of Kerala

Wilson Vs Pudukkad Grama Panchayath