RAJ KUMAR Vs. MATHAIKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein approached the learned Single Judge aggrieved by Ext.P2 proceedings of the 2nd respondent Secretary of Kottanadu Grama Panchayat under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) It is not in dispute that Ext.P2 order is the outcome of a resolution at Annexure A1 of Kottanadu Grama Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge contended, without hearing him, an 'Anjili' tree that was standing in his property for long time was directed to be removed within a period of 7 days after receiving Ext.P2 order. According to him, the said tree is not causing any threat or nuisance endangering the neighbouring property owner i.e. the appellant herein. According to him, Ext.P2 is nothing but an outcome of personal animosity by the present appellant against the writ petitioner and the appellant has influence with the Panchayat Committee.

(3.) So far as the appellant's contention before the learned Single Judge that there was no necessity even to hear the writ petitioner/the owner of the tree in question, if one has analysed the intention indicated at Section 238 (1) (a) of the Act. According to him, the Panchayat initiated action being convinced of the fact that there is likelihood of the 'Anjili' tree falling on the house of the appellant herein which may result in danger to the property as well as the life of the appellant and others. According to him, an enquiry and inspection of the site was made by the Secretary and only after being convinced that root of the tree was getting decayed, when the matter was placed before the Panchayat Annexure A1 resolution came to be passed. Several photographs came to be placed before the learned Single Judge.