High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-08-04Writ petition disposed of with directions to cu...

N. Ramachandran Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.10528/2020(M)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2020-08-04
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 to take expeditious action to cut and remove the Vaka tree in question, which is now standing as a threat to the lives and property to the public. The said respondents shall take action in this regard forthwith.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to cut and remove the Vaka tree forthwith; expeditious action required by respondents 4 and 5.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

N. Ramachandran Pillai

Respondents

State of Kerala
The District Collector, Kollam
The Sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue Divisional Officer), Punalur
The Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. (Roads), Pathanapuram
The Tahasildar, Pathanapuram
The Village Officer, Thalavoor Village
Smt. Santhamma
Thalavoor Grama Panchayath (represented by its Secretary)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri M.R. Sasith (Govt Pleader) for Respondents 1-6
• Sri A. Sanil Kumar (Advoc.) for Respondent 8 (Thalavoor Grama Panchayath)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, a senior citizen running a tea shop at Randalummood Junction, Thalavoor, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 to 7 to cut and remove a Vaka tree standing on the 7th respondent’s property adjacent to his shop and the public road. The tree, about 35 years old, is tall and overhangs the PWD road, with branches that threaten to fall, endangering life and property of the petitioner and the public during monsoon and windy seasons. After several complaints to the District Collector, the 2nd respondent directed the 8th respondent Panchayat to cut branches if dangerous, but no action followed. The 3rd respondent, RDO, invoked Section 133 Cr.P.C. and ordered branch removal, but the 4th respondent allegedly filed only partial compliance. The petitioner argues public safety requires removal of the entire tree; reliance is placed on Supreme Court precedents Vasant Manga Nikumba v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu and Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra to justify writ relief and swift government action. The respondents contend that a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. has been issued after expert report; the Tree Committee and district authorities recommended only branch-cutting, not removal, and that the tree does not pose immediate danger to the petitioner’s shop. The Court ultimately holds that retaining the tree with only branch-cutting is inadequate and directs expeditious removal of the tree, disposing the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 133 Cr.P.C.Section 138 Cr.P.C.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Vaka tree is standing dangerously in the petitioner’s and public space. It is 35 years old and overhangs the tea shop. Complaints were ignored; the 3rd respondent's order under 133 Cr.P.C. was not implemented; There is a persistent threat during the monsoon. He relies on Supreme Court precedents to support swift writ relief to prevent danger to life and property. The petitioner asserts that the tree must be cut entirely to avert risk and that partial trimming would be futile. The petitioner also asserts that the authorities have not complied with their statutory obligations, and there is risk to public safety; The petitioner prays for immediate intervention to ensure removal of the tree.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on government reports: a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. has been issued after an expert report; the Tree Committee recommended only branch-cutting, not complete removal; the tree is on the opposite side of the petitioner’s shop; the 7th respondent has no objection to removal; The District Panchayat’s decision indicates that cutting the branches would be insufficient to remove danger. They urge deference to authorities and expert findings, arguing that the writ petition is without merit and that the Court should not substitute its policy for that of the statutory authorities. The government pleader emphasizes danger has been assessed as manageable by cutting branches, and that removal is not necessarily required.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vasant Manga Nikumba and others v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (Deceased) by LRs and Another	1995 Supp (4) SCC 54	Positive	Cited by petitioner in support of writ petition.
Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra	Criminal Appeal No.1350/2003	Positive	Cited by petitioner in support of writ petition.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against N. Ramachandran Pillai v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** ## **TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10528 OF 2020(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **N.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 79 YEARS, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN PILLAI, ASHOK BHAVAN VEEDU, NJARAKKAD MURI, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, THALAVOOR P.O., PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 508.** **BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL**| ||**SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**REVENUE DEPARTMENT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE,**| ||**CIVIL LINES,**| ||**CUTCHERY P.O.,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 013.**| |**3**|**THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE**| ||**(REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER),**| ||**PUNALUR P.O.,**| ||**PUNALUR,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 305.**| |**4**|**THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,**| ||**P.W.D.(ROADS),**| ||**PATHANAPURAM P.O.,**| ||**KOLLAM-689 695.**| **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:2:** - **5 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAPURAM, PATHANAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-689 695.** - **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, THALAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 508.** - **7 SMT.SANTHAMMA, PERUMBALATH PADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, NJARAKKATTU MURI, THALAVOOR VILLAGE, THALAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM-691 508.** > ADDL. **8 THALAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THALAVOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 508, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** **IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R8 AS PER ORDER DATED 8.7.2020 IN I.A.1/2020 IN WPC 10528/2020.** **BY ADV. SRI.A.SANIL KUMAR R8 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH GOVERNMENT PLEADER - SMT. RESHMI K.M.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:3:** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ## _**Dated this the 4[th] day of August, 2020**_ The petitioner seeks to direct respondents 4 to 7 to cut and remove the Vaka tree standing in the property of the 7[th] respondent, situated in a dangerous condition, causing imminent danger to the life of the petitioner and the public and abate the nuisance within a stipulated time as directed by this Court. 2. The petitioner states that he is a senior citizen conducting a tea shop at Randalummood Junction in Thalavoor Village, for livelihood. The 7[th] respondent is a close relative of the petitioner having title of 2.62 Ares of property situated at Randalummood Junction adjacent to the shop of the petitioner. A Vaka tree is standing in the **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:4:** property adjacent to the PWD road. The tree is 35 year old, tall and spreading branches over a large area. The tree and branches are likely to fall over the tea shop of the petitioner and the adjacent shop rooms. The tree as it stands, is a threat to the life of the public. 3. On complaints filed by the petitioner before the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector seeking to cut and remove the tree, the 2[nd] respondent directed the Secretary to the additional 8[th] respondent-Panchayat to take steps to cut the branches of the tree if found dangerous to the public. No action was taken by the additional 8[th] respondent. The petitioner again made complaints to the 2[nd] respondent. The 2[nd] respondent directed the 4[th] respondent-Assistant Engineer, PWD to enquire and report. The 4[th] respondent took steps to cut and remove the tree. However, no positive results were seen. 4. Thereupon, the petitioner again made complaint to the 2[nd] respondent. A complaint was preferred before the **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:5:** 3[rd] respondent-RDO also. The 3[rd] respondent passed order dated 01.10.2019 invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C. and directed the 4[th] respondent to cut and remove the branches of the Vaka tree stood in the property of the 7[th] respondent. The 4[th] respondent, without taking any steps to implement the orders, submitted false reports before the 3[rd] respondent stating that only four branches of the tree need to be cut and removed. The petitioner states that the tree is standing dangerously and unless urgent orders are passed by this Court, it is likely to endanger the lives and property of the public. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in _**Vasant Manga Nikumba and others v. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu (Deceased) by LRs and Another** [1995 Supp (4) SCC 54]_ and _**Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal v. State of Maharashtra** [Criminal Appeal No.1350/2003]_ , in support of the writ petition. **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:6:** 6. The 7[th] respondent filed a counter affidavit admitting that the tree is causing imminent danger and threat to the life of the people in the locality during rainy season. The 7[th] respondent has no objection to cut and remove the tree. 7. The learned Government Pleader filed a statement on behalf of the 1[st] respondent. The learned Government Pleader stated that a final order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. was issued after seeking report from expert committee. A site inspection was conducted to ascertain the genuineness of the complaint. According to the learned Government Pleader, the stand taken by the petitioner is groundless and misleading. The Tree Committee has stated that cutting and removal of branches of the tree alone is necessary to avoid danger. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is no danger from the tree to the petitioner, as the tree is standing in the opposite side of the petitioners' shop. The writ petition is therefore **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:7:** devoid of merits. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for additional 8[th] respondent. 9. From Annexure-R1(a) letter dated 10.07.2019 of the Tahsildar, Pathanapuram addressed to the RDO, Punalur, it is seen that the tree in question is standing dangerously with its roots cut and broken. The tree, if falls down, will cause damage to life and property. From Annexure-R1(a), it has to be assumed that the tree stands on a precarious position. In Annexure-R1(b), the Tree Committee of Thalavoor Grama Panchayat has advised to cut and remove the branches of the tree. Ext.P6 proceedings of the Sub Divisional Magistrate also is to cut and remove the branches of the tree. Ext.P6 has been passed invoking Section 133 Cr.P.C. 10. From Ext.R7(a) letter dated 18.03.2020 of the **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:8:** Assistant Forest Conservator addressed to the Assistant Engineer, PWD, it is evident that a meeting of the Kollam District Panchayat, taking into account the situation, has decided to grant approval to cut and remove the tree. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 8[th] respondent submitted that the definite instructions given by the Panchayat is to the effect that a very strong wind during this period of Monsoon, is likely to result in falling of the tree causing grave danger to the general public. 11. Taking into consideration the report of the Tahsildar in Annexure-R1(a) and the decision of the District Panchayat as disclosed from Ext.R7(a) and the stand now taken by the additional 8[th] respondent, this Court is of the definite opinion that retaining the tree, cutting its branches alone, is not likely to prevent the danger and threat to human life and property. There indeed is a likelihood of the tree falling down and causing considerable damage. In the circumstances, necessary orders are required in this writ **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:9:** petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing respondents 4 and 5 to take expeditious action to cut and remove the Vaka tree in question, which is now standing as a threat to the lives and property to the public. The said respondents shall take action in this regard forthwith. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/04/08/2020 **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:10:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.05.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.05.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B32609/19 DATED 13.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THALAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.06.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.C.185/19 (G-4136/19) DATED 01.10.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.12.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE VAKA TREE SITUATED IN A DANGEROUS CONDITION. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.C.185/20 (G-4136/2019 DATED 10.03.2020) ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **WP(C)No.10528/2020(M)** **:11:** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS** **ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR. ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TREE COMMITTEE REPORT. EXHIBIT R7(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:SA32056/2019 DATED 18/03/2020 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATOR, KOLLAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**