Kerala High Court
T.K.Shajahan vs Kumaramangalam Grama Panchayat on 28 July, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 15275 of 2012 (H)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. T.K.SHAJAHAN,, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O HUSSAN KHANJ, THOPPIL HOUSE
PERUMPILLICHJIRA P.O, THODUPUZHA
2. HUSSAN KHAN,, AGED 75 YEARS
S/O MEERAN KHAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O
THODUPUZHA
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KUMARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KUMARAMANGALAM P.O, (VIA) THODUPUZHA 685608
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE SECRETARY,
KUMARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,KUMARAMANGALAM P.O
(VIA) THODUPUZHA 685608,
3. ISMAIL KHAN ALIAS RAWTHER,
S/O MEERAN KHAN, THOPPIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLICHIRA P.O
THODUPUZHA
BY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 15275 of 2012 (H)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-
EXT. P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 28-07-2008
EXT. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER WITH THE PANCHAYAT, DATED 16-02-2012
EXT. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08-03-2012 ISSUED
BY THE PANCHAYAT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL.
( TRUE COPY )
PA TO JUDGE
Kvs/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.15275 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th September, 2012.
J U D G M E N T
Though notice was ordered in this writ petition and service is complete, there was no appearance for the respondents. The petitioners, father and son, complain that two coconut palms and four rubber trees belonging to the third respondent are overhanging the property of the petitioners, in a dangerous manner. The petitioner has children of tender ages who play in his compound. There is threat of falling coconuts and dry fronds from the trees. The petitioners, therefore complained to the first respondent. As per Ext.P1, the third respondent was directed to remove the over hanging trees. Subsequently, as per Ext.P3, a peremptory direction has been issued to the third respondent. In spite of the above, the petitioners complain that the trees have not been cut and removed. WP(C).No.15275/2012.
2
2. In view of the fact that Ext.P3 order has been issued directing the third respondent to cut and remove the offending trees as early as on 8.3.2012, there is no justification for delaying implementation thereof. If the third respondent is not complying with the positive orders issued, it shall be open to the second respondent to implement the same. Passing orders like Ext.P3 without taking any action to implement the same does not serve any purpose.
3. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of directing the second respondent to implement directions in Exts.P1 and P2, if necessary by securing Police assistance for the purpose. The orders shall be implemented, as early as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-