KALADHARAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come up before this Court aggrieved by the non -implementation of the order in MC No.56/2008, whereby the 2nd respondent was directed to cut down and remove a tree, which is standing in the property of the 2nd respondent in a dangerous condition.

(2.) THE Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad passed Ext.P2 order in MC No.56/2008 on a petition filed by the petitioner for an order to cut and remove the tree standing in the property of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent also sought for an order directing demolition and reconstruction of a wall standing close to the tree belonging to the petitioner. Both petitions were allowed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the Court of Sessions. However, the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was confirmed; and ultimately, the matter came up before this Court in Crl.M.C. No.4157/2010, wherein this Court directed the petitioner to approach the trial court. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a civil suit claiming damages. The implementation of the order has been injuncted by the learned Munsiff. While so, the petitioner sought for implementation of the order in MC No.56/2008 against the 2nd respondent to cut and remove the tree on the ground that the 2nd respondent has never challenged the same. By the impugned order, the 1st respondent declined to implement the same merely for the reason that it was a combined order and that a civil suit was pending. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) THE writ petition was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the ground that there was a direction by this Court to implement the direction against the 2nd respondent as well as against the petitioner. But, the fact remains that the 2nd respondent has not taken any steps to get the order, if any, against the petitioner implemented. As the things remain at present, there is an order against the 2nd respondent, which had attained finality; and by this writ petition, the petitioner is intending to get the same implemented. Therefore, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner is entitled to get the relief as prayed for. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to implement Ext.P3 order insofar as it directs the 2nd respondent to cut down the tree standing in the property of the 2nd respondent. It is hereby made clear that if the 2nd respondent is intending to get the order in his favour implemented, he can approach the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings.