V.N. Sabu, Vs Leela Mani Raju — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

V.N. Sabu, Vs Leela Mani Raju — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

2025:KER:27940

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

WP(C) NO. 11735 OF 2025

PETITIONER/S:

V.N. SABU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. NARAYAN (LATE),AISWARYA BHAVAN, MUHAMMA P.O., KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688525

BY ADV C.G.RAJ KUMAR

RESPONDENT/S:

1 LEELA MANI RAJU, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. RAJU, THARAPPIL HOUSE, NJEEZHOOR P.O., NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686612

2 NJEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NJEEZHOOR P.O., NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686612

3 SECRETARY, NJEEZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,NJEEZHOOR P.O., NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE,VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686612

W.P.C No. 11735 of 2025

2

2025:KER:27940

OTHER PRESENT:

Shri.Tom Jose (Padinjarekkara)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.C No. 11735 of 2025

3

2025:KER:27940

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order issued by the 3rd respondent, based on the decision taken by the committee of the 2 nd respondent-Panchayat. As per Ext.P8, the petitioner was required to cut and remove a coconut tree acting upon the complaint submitted by the 1 st respondent, as according to the respondents, the said coconut tree is in a dangerous condition. The specific case of the petitioner is that, before passing Ext.P8 the petitioner was not heard and therefore, the principles of natural justice were not complied with.

2 . I have carefully gone through the records and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. It is discernible from the records that, earlier Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner to which an objection in the form of Ext.P6 was submitted. However, even though in Ext.P8 the said objection was referred to, admittedly no hearing of the petitioner was conducted. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, Ext.P8 cannot be

W.P.C No. 11735 of 2025

4

2025:KER:27940

treated as a legally sustainable one in view of the fact that, an opportunity for being heard was denied to the petitioner.

In such circumstances, it is ordered that, the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents shall give the petitioner an opportunity for being heard and appropriate decision shall be taken, by the 2 nd respondent, finalising Ext.P8 order based on such hearing and also referring to Ext.P6 objection. While taking a decision, the 1st respondent herein shall also be heard. A final decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

rpk

W.P.C No. 11735 of 2025

5

2025:KER:27940

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11735/2025

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1132/2017 DATED 05.08.2017 OF KURAVILANGAD S.R.O.

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON 16.03.2025 WHICH SHOWS THAT THE COCONUT TREE IS TIGHTENED WITH STEEL WIRESTRING

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DATED 12.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED ‘NIL’ SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH EMAIL

Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY THE REPLY DATED 01.01.2025 SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT