Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation to cut and remove the dangerous trees standing on an adjoining property within one month, with the District Collector and Revenue Divisional Officer to supervise compliance. The case arose from a 92-year-old homeowner’s complaint that large trees and overgrowth on the neighbouring plot posed a continuing threat to his house and safety, leading to years of unresolved representations to local authorities. The Court clarified that where immediate action is required under Section 412(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, the municipal secretary may cut down such dangerous trees without prior notice to the owner.

The petitioner, a 92-year-old resident of Ernakulam District, approached the High Court seeking implementation of an order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer directing action under Section 412 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. He alleged that two large trees and overgrown vegetation on the neighbouring property posed danger to his residential building, causing structural damage and safety concerns. He had earlier submitted a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer, which resulted in a direction to the Municipal Corporation to take action. Photographs and official communications, including reports from the Village Officer, were produced to show the condition of the property and the alleged nuisance.

Also Read: Disability Pension Broad-Banding Arrears For Eligible Ex-Servicemen Must Be Paid From January 1, 1996 Or Date Of Retirement Without 3-Year Limit: Supreme Court

Despite further directions from the District Collector, only partial clearing of bushes was carried out, and the trees were not removed. The fifth respondent contended that the property was subject to civil litigation and attachment, and that she was unable to enter or manage it.

The Court observed, “Mr C.J. Mathews is a 92-year-old man. This nonagenarian has been fighting for a genuine cause for the last 9 years.” It recorded, “He apprehends an imminent danger to his property and his residential building because of certain trees standing on the neighbouring property.”

Referring to the statutory provision, the Court extracted Section 412 and stated, “A perusal of Section 412 of the Act 1994, it is clear that where immediate action is necessary, the Secretary can cut and remove the trees or branches thereof, if they are dangerously situated.” It further stated, “If the ingredients of Section 412(2) of the Act 1994 are attracted, even a notice is not necessary for taking action.”

The Court noted, “When a tree is in a dangerous situation, the Corporation Authority need not go behind the real owner to ascertain the ownership of the property, and, in such a situation, immediate action ought to have been taken.” It also recorded, “Even then, no action was taken.”

On the grievance raised, the Court stated, “This is nothing but a sorry state of affairs. To cut and remove a dangerous tree leaning toward a residential house, a citizen has to approach the Constitutional Court!” It observed, “It is the duty of this Court to see that the grievance of this nonagenarian is redressed.”

The Court further stated, “From the facts and pleadings, it is clear that the trees are in a dangerous situation.” It added, “Therefore, the Corporation can very well invoke the powers under Section 412(2) of the Act, 1994.”

Also Read: Filing False Civil Suit Based On Forged Document Against SC/ST Person Can Prima Facie Attract SC/ST Act Offence: Kerala High Court

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed, “The 3rd respondent will see that the dangerous trees mentioned in Ext.P5 are cut and removed forthwith, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 will supervise and do the needful to ensure that the 3rd respondent is complying with the direction within one month, as directed above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Shri M. Dinesh, Shri Suresh Kumar C.G.

For the Respondents: Shri K.B. Arunkumar, Smt. P. Rani Diothima, Smt. P.V. Radhamani, Smt. Rose Ann Babu, Government Pleader Smt. Preetha K.K.

Case Title: C.J. Mathews v. District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:10344
Case Number: WP(C) No. 34797 of 2024
Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan