Allowed

E.Arulanantham v. the Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC23 Oct 2018WP(MD)/929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court, in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, set aside an order refusing permission to cut banyan tree branches encroaching on the petitioner's property and directed the respondents to remove them within two weeks, considering the branches endangered lives. Dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order referring to refusal of permission and directed respondents to remove encroaching banyan tree branches within two weeks.

E.Arulanantham Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED:23.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PARTHIBAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.929 of 2018 and WMP(MD) No.978 and 979 of 2018

E.Arulanantham

... Petitioner

vs.

1.The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment(HR&CE), Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

3.The Tahsildar, Vilavancode, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus thereby direct the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.2371/2014/A3, dated 30.09.2014 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and in consequences thereof direct the respondents to remove the branches of banyan tree protruding on the terrace of the petitioner's building bearing Door No.8-17/2A, S.F.No.608/2010, situated at Mathicodu Desom, Midalam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukaruppan Additional Government Pleader

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the third respondent refusing permission to him to cut the branches of banyan tree protruding vigorously over his property.

¶17

According to the third respondent, the tree is very old and the local people are worshipping the tree and they consider it as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one of the divining trees. The said order passed by the third respondent is put to challenge in this writ petition.

¶18

¶19

When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the property has been surveyed by the authority concerned and it was found that there was no encroachment and the petitioner can be permitted to cut the branches of the banyan tree which protruded precariously endangering the lives of the petitioner and his family.

¶20

In view of the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader and also taking into consideration the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the impugned order passed by the third respondent is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to remove the branches of banyan tree protruding on the terrace of the petitioner's property bearing Door No.8-17/2A, S.F.No.608/2010, situated at Mathicodu Desom, Midalam Village, Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The respondents are directed to comply with the direction within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Assistant Registrar(C.O)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶26

ssl

¶27

¶28

1.The Assistant Commissioner,

¶29

Hindu Religious Charitable and Endowment(HR&CE), Nagercoil,Kanyakumari District.

¶30

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶31

Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District.

¶32

3.The Tahsildar,

¶33

Vilavancode,

¶34

Vilavancode Taluk, Kanyakumari District.

¶35

+1cc to Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate in SR No.91271 +1cc to Spl Government Pleader, SR No.91404

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.929 of 2018

¶38

NM /SV/SAR II/13.11.18/2P/6C.

E.Arulanantham v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.Arulanantham v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

M.Irulappan, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

V.Arumugam Asari, Vs the Joint Commissioner

M.Ganesh, Vs the Regional Passport Officer

A.Tamilselvan, Vs the Managing Director

R.K.Veerasamy, Vs the District Revenue Officer

C.Balasubramanian Vs the Tahsildar