Removal of nuisance coconut trees and high court judgment
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 15 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
My neighbour's five coconut trees are leaning towards my property. I then approached the authorities after my polite requests, to cut the trees, fell on deaf ears. The Appellate and Compounding Authority Conservator of Forests – Panaji, Goa gave orders to my neighbour to cut two deceased coconut trees and one healthy tree that was completely leaning towards my property. The court also in the order stated that the remaining two coconut trees be pulled away from my property by using ropes and then tie the ropes to a strong anchorage, failing which even those two coconut trees would have to be cut.
My neighbour then filed a criminal writ petition against the above order at the Goa bench of Bombay High Court. After two hearings the High Court passed an order to cut only the two deceased coconut trees and that the remaining three coconut trees could stand because they are healthy. The trees are causing nuisance and posing a danger to life and property. The coconut fruits of these three trees fall in my property at my entrance posing danger to life. What should I do now?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 November 2010
It appears that your case was properly represented before the high court if the allegations as you made are factually correct.Anyway , now you can make a compliant to the nearest Magistrate u/s 133 of crpc to remove such nuisance which poses threat to the security of life and limb.
Guest
(Expert) 15 November 2010
Respected Mr Devajyoti ji.... I think its a private nuisance and not a public nuisance. Then how can he make a complaint under section 133 Cr.P.C.
The purpose and object of Section 133 Cr.P.C is not intended to settle private disputes between two members of the public but is intended to protect the public as a whole against the inconvenience of public nuisance. No doubt that the provisions of Section 133 Cr.P.C., cannot be used for settlement of disputes between private parties.
Guest
(Expert) 15 November 2010
The power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is vested with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate, in order to protect the people from the tyranny of the public nuisance, by way of removing the nuisance.
As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, nuisance is an inconvenience which materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence, but it is not capable of precise definition. Section 133 attracts only public nuisance, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vasant Manga Nikumba vs. Baburao Bhikanna Naidu, reported in (1995) 4 (Supp) SCC 54. If the inconvenience or annoyance affects public at large, that has to be construed only as public nuisance. In the instant case, it has been established that the annoyance did not affects public at large, so in my considered view it's private nuisance.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 16 November 2010
Mr.Ajitabh is right. You have to issue a legal notice to the opposite party seeking the removal of the private nuisance. If it is not complied with,you have to file a suit for mandatory injunction only against him. Sec.133 cannot be invoked in such a case.
