Kerala High Court
Parameswaran vs Rajappan on 18 June, 2025
Author: Kauser Edappagath
Bench: Kauser Edappagath
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005
..1..
2025:KER:43805
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2945 OF 2005
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2005 IN CRL.R.P.NO.42 OF 2000
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, FAST TRACK COURT-I, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER IN CRL.R.P.-RESPONDENT IN
CRL.R.P.-PETITIONER IN M.C.:
PARAMESWARAN
S/O. VELAYUDHAN, THOTTUKADU,
VAVULLIAPURAM, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 2 IN CRL.R.P. -
PETITIONER IN CRL.R.P. - CR.PETITIONER IN M.C.:
1 RAJAPPAN
S/O. MANI, KOOTTAPURAYIL,
VAVULIAPURAM, ALATHUR,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SHRI.A.R.GANGADAS
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005
..2..
2025:KER:43805
SRI.SANGEETHA RAJ.N.R-SR.PP
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 18.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005
..3..
2025:KER:43805
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track - I, Palakkad in Crl. Rev. Pet. No.42/2000.
2. The petitioner herein filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer (for short, 'the RDO'), Palakkad stating that on 16.09.1999, the 1st respondent planted 12 coconut saplings in the varamba of his property and if the coconut saplings grow up, it will cause damages to his paddy field situated adjacent to the property of the 1 st respondent. He prayed to direct the 1st respondent to uproot and remove the coconut saplings planted there. The RDO, after obtaining the report of the Village Officer, passed a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. on 03.09.1999 directing the 1 st respondent to uproot and remove the saplings or to show cause. The 1st respondent entered appearance and objected Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005 ..4..
2025:KER:43805 existence of a public right in his property. The petitioner as well as the 1st respondent were examined by the RDO. Thereafter, the RDO passed an order dated 24.03.2000 under Section 138 of Cr.P.C. directing the 1st respondent to uproot and remove the coconut saplings. The 1st respondent challenged the order of the RDO before the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad in Crl.Rev.Pet. No. 42/2000. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the RDO holding that there is nothing on record to show that the 1st respondent planted saplings in a public way or it is causing nuisance to the general public who uses the varamba. The said order is under challenge in this criminal revision petition.
3. I have heard both sides.
4. In the petition filed by the petitioner before the RDO, it is stated that the coconut saplings were planted by the 1st respondent in the varamba of his property and in Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005 ..5..
2025:KER:43805 future they may cause difficulty to the paddy cultivation carried on in his property. The petitioner does not have a case at all that the varamba is a public way or any obstruction is caused to the public in using the varamba in any manner. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is only about private nuisance to him, not with respect to any public nuisance. Sections 133 to 143 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in a case of a public nuisance. It cannot be applied with respect to private nuisance, which is to be agitated before a civil court. In other words, the power vested with the RDO under Sections 133 to 143 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised only to remove obstruction or invasion in public right only and not to any private nuisance. Since no public right is alleged or proved to be invaded, the Additional Sessions Court is perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the RDO. I see no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005
..6..
2025:KER:43805 The revision petition fails and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE APA Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2945 of 2005 ..7..
2025:KER:43805 APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 2945/2005 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A DATED 24-3-2000, CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE B DATED 28-5-2005, CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAKKAD IN CRL.R.P 42/2000