Disposed

Mayakkara Seithalavi v. Cherukavu Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Aug 2022WP(C)/482/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged Panchayat notices requiring tree removal due to alleged safety threats. The High Court observed petitioner measures to secure falling coconuts and directed the Panchayat to re-assess the threat within two months with an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Panchayat authorities to re-assess the threat from trees within two months after a hearing to the parties.

Mayakkara Seithalavi Vs Cherukavu Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 482 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

MAYAKKARA SEITHALAVI AGED 50 YEARS S/O MAYIN, MALEKKAATT PURAAYI HOUSE, PUTHOOPPADAM, AIKKARAPPADI P O, MALAPPURAM-673637.

¶7

BY ADVS. P.V.ANOOP PHIJO PRADEESH PHILIP M.P.PRIYESHKUMAR7 K.V.SREERAJ

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

1 CHERUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERIYAMBALAM, PULICKAL P O, MALAPPURAM-673637.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY CHERUKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERIYAMBALAM, PULICKAL P O, MALAPPURAM-673637.

¶11

3 OMBUDSMAN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, SAPHALYAM COMPLEX, 4TH FLOOR, TRIDA BUILDING, UNIVERSITY P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

¶12

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 ]

¶13

¶14

4 SUHARA EDAMBAATT. EDAMBAATT HOUSE, AYIKKARAPPADI P O, MALAPPURAM-673637.

¶15

BY ADVS.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN T.M.KHALID K.P.SUSMITHA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 ]

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2022

¶21

The petitioner is a coolie worker residing in his own residence situated in a property comprising of 11.58 cents of land in Cherukavu Panchayat.

¶22

When the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 complaint against the 4^th respondent for unauthorised construction of a toilet, the 4^th respondent filed a complaint before the 2^nd respondent stating that a Coconut tree and a Mahogany tree standing in the property of the petitioner are creating threat to the life and property of the 4^th respondent.

¶23

On receipt of the complaint, the Panchayat authorities issued Ext.P3 notice requiring the petitioner to cut and remove trees standing in a dangerous position. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply to Ext.P3 notice. The petitioner stated that no trees,

¶24

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 4 ]

¶25

Coconut tree or Mahogany tree standing in the property of the petitioner, are causing any threat to the 4^th respondent.

¶26

The petitioner states that in spite of Ext.P4 reply, the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P5 calling upon the petitioner to participate in a hearing. The petitioner informed the Secretary to the Panchayat that the tree standing in the petitioner's property are secured now and those are not causing any threat to the 4^th respondent or her building. Nevertheless, the Secretary to the Panchayat issued Exts.P7 and P9 notices which stated that the threat from the trees standing in the property of the petitioner is still subsisting. It is aggrieved by Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P9 that the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶27

The Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext.P4 reply is evasive, putting the

¶28

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 5 ]

¶29

blame entirely on the respondents. The fact that the trees are 25 years old and complaint is raised only now is not an acceptable explanation. Younger trees do not pose danger normally. Ext.P5 notice was issued for hearing both sides. The petitioner, but was inclined to avoid the danger posed by the trees involved. The petitioner took an obstinate stand blaming the respondents for alleged water pollution.

¶30

Ext.P6 reply of the petitioner was not satisfactory and could not be regarded as a permanent solution to thwart the danger to life and properties. Therefore, Ext.P7 notice was issued. Ext.P8 reply also does not provide a solution to the danger apprehended. Ext.P9 notice is legal and issued under proper authority and in compliance with statutory requirements.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for

¶32

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 ]

¶33

¶34

respondents 1 and 2.

¶35

At the time of hearing, the petitioner produced Ext.P11 photograph which indicated that the petitioner had made certain arrangements for securing leaves and coconuts falling down.

¶36

In view of the measures now taken by the petitioner pending the writ petition, this Court is of the view that respondents 1 and 2 shall reconsider the matter afresh to ascertain whether there is any subsisting threat from the tree standing in the property of the petitioner to the 4^th respondent.

¶37

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent among respondents 1 and 2 to re-assess the issue and ascertain whether there is any threat from the trees standing in the property of the petitioner, to the 4^th respondent. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the competent among respondents 1 and 2 within a period of two months,

¶38

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 7 ]

¶39

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent. The interim order

¶40

passed by this Court in this writ petition will continue to enure to the benefit of the petitioner, till a decision is taken by the respondents pursuant to the direction as given above.

¶41

Sd /-

¶42

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶43

smm/12.08.2022

¶44

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 ]

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 482/2022

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 25.09.2004 ISSUED BY THE SRO RAMATTUKARA. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A12407/21 DATED 19.03.2021 TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2021 ALONG WITH ITS RECEIPT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.09.2021 BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A12407/21 DATED 20.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.10.2021. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A12407/21 DATED 02.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED AS FORM A DATED 31.12.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH

¶49

W.P(C) No.482 of 2022 ]

¶50

¶51

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE NOTE FILE DATED 18/03/2021 OF B4 CLERK

Mayakkara Seithalavi v. Cherukavu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayakkara Seithalavi v. Cherukavu 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

Sherly Mathew Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Shamsudheen, Vs Ittiva Grama Panchayat

Sumathy Vs State of Kerala

Khalid Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran A.K Vs Kaiparambu Grama Panchayath

Ratheesh P.S, Vs the Director of Mining and Geology