Saturday 1 June 2013

Conditional order for removal of nuisance.--Procedure to be followed

 
Going by the above provision, it can be seen that

only a conditional order can be issued under Section

133 CrPC, giving an opportunity to show cause for

not making the order absolute and that an

absolute/final order can be issued only under





Section 138 CrPC. In the event, the party aggrieved

opposes the notice and shows cause for not

complying with the conditional order, it is for the

lower authority to conduct enquiry and decide the

case on merits. Here no any such procedure is seen

followed by the lower authority. The notice dated

20/9/2005 would not show that any opportunity was

given to the petitioner to show cause for not

complying with the order.       Though the revision

petitioner denied any further threat, without any

enquiry or finding regarding any threat to be abated,

Annexure A1 order was issued. It is clear violation

of the procedure laid down by CrPC. Therefore, it

would go without saying that the order impugned is

not sustainable and liable to be interfered.
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM                    
  
              Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 700 of 2006 ( )
              -------------------------------
  



        V.P.SUBAIDA, W/O.SIDHIQUE,
      

V

    1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
        OTTAPALAM.




      
       Dated this the 9th day of October, 2012
Citation ;2013 CR LJ(NOC)163 kerala


                        O R D E R


    Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety

of Annexure A1 order dated 16/2/2006 purporting to

have been issued under Section 133 (1) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Ottappalam, this revision petition is

preferred. Annexure A1 order reads as follows:

       "Village     Officers's        report      dated
       21/10/2005-It is reported that after
       receive the notice           the    respondent
       has cut and remove some branches of
       trees which caused nuisance to the
       property of the petitioner and two
       coconut trees        has    been    tied    with
       stay wire-but it is also reported
       that, on enquiry it is known that
       one coconut tree belonging to the
       respondent standing near the house
       of  petitioner       is    to    be    cut   and
       removed to abate this threat."





Going by Annexure A1 order, I could not make out

any head or tail out of it.

     2. The records were called for. The records do

not contain any such order.       Whereas it would

contain a copy of the order dated 20/9/2005 issued

as if a notice. The operative portion of the order

reads as follows:

         "In this circumstance, inview of the
         report    submitted by  the   village
         officer, Chalavara, I hereby direct
         the respondent Siddique to cut and
         remove/tie    with  stay   wire   the
         trees/branches   of trees  which  are
         found to be pausing threat to the
         life and property of the petitioner
         within 7 days in receipt of this
         notice without fail in the presence
         of the village officer, Chalavara."

The above order would show that there is a mandate

directing the revision petitioner to       cut and

remove/tie with stay wire the trees/branches of





trees which are found to be pausing threat to the life

and property of the petitioner within seven days.

Records also would show that the petitioner filed

objection stating that she had cut down branches of

trees which paused threat and coconut trees were

tied with stay wire and there is no further threat.

          3. There is no whisper in the order that in

fact, the lower authority had considered the

objection raised by the petitioner and arrived at a

conclusion that any of the trees are further threat to

the life and property of the defacto complainant.

Whatever it may be, I find that neither Annexure A1

order or the notice is in compliance of Section 133

CrPC which reads as follows:

         "133.Conditional order for removal of
         nuisance.--(1)Whenever   a    District
         Magistrate    or   a    Sub-divisional





         Magistrate    or  any  other  Executive
         Magistrate specially empowered in this
         behalf by the State Government, on
         receiving    the  report of  a   police
         officer or other information and on
         taking such evidence (if any) as he
         thinks fit, considers--
                   (a)    that   any    unlawful
           obstruction or nuisance should be
           removed from any public place or
           from any way, river or channel which
           is or may be lawfully used by the
           public; or
                   (b) that the conduct of any
           trade or occupation, or the keeping
           of   any  goods  or  merchandise,  is
           injurious to the health or physical
           comfort of the community, and that
           in    consequence   such   trade   or
           occupation should be prohibited or
           regulated     or   such   goods    or
           merchandise should be removed or the
           keeping thereof regulated; or
                   (c) that the construction of
           any building, or, the disposal of
           any   substance,  as  is  likely   to
           occasion conflagration or explosion,
           should be prevented or stopped; or
                   (d) that any building, tent
           or structure, or any tree is in such
           a condition that it is likely to
           fall and thereby cause injury to
           persons    living  or   carrying   on
           business   in  the  neighbourhood  or
           passing by, and that in consequence
           the removal, repair or support of
           such building, tent or structure, or
           the removal or support of such tree,





           is necessary; or
                   (e) that any tank, well or
           excavation adjacent to any such way
           or public place should be fenced in
           such manner as to prevent danger
           arising to the public; or
                   (f) that any dangerous animal
           should   be  destroyed,  confined  or
           otherwise disposed of,

         Such Magistrate may make a conditional
         order   requiring  the  person  causing
         such   obstruction   or  nuisance,   or
         carrying on such trade or occupation,
         or    keeping   any   such   goods   or
         merchandise, or owning, possessing or
         controlling    such   building,   tent,
         structure, substance, tank, well or
         excavation, or owning or possessing
         such animal or tree, within a time to
         be fixed in the order--

                (i) to remove such obstruction
         or nuisance; or
                (ii)   to desist from carrying
         on, or to remove or regulate in such
         manner as may be directed, such trade
         or occupation, or to remove such goods
         or merchandise, or to regulate the
         keeping thereof in such manner as may
         be directed; or
                   (iii) to prevent or stop the
         construction of such building, or to
         alter the disposal of such substance;
         or
                   (iv)    to remove, repair or
         support    such   building,   tent   or
         structure, or to remove or support





         such trees; or
                   (v) to fence such tank, well
         or excavation; or
                   (vi)  to destroy, confine or
         dispose of such dangerous animal in
         the manner provided in the said order;
         or, if he objects so to do, to appear
         before himself or some other Executive
         Magistrate subordinate    to him at a
         time and place to be fixed by the
         order, and show cause, in the manner
         hereinafter provided, why the order
         should not be made absolute.
                   (2) No order duly made by a
         Magistrate under this section shall be
         called in question in any Civil Court.

              Explanation.--A  "public   place"
         includes also property belonging to
         the State, camping grounds and grounds
         left   unoccupied   for  sanitary   or
         recreative purposes."



Going by the above provision, it can be seen that

only a conditional order can be issued under Section

133 CrPC, giving an opportunity to show cause for

not making the order absolute and that an

absolute/final order can be issued only under





Section 138 CrPC. In the event, the party aggrieved

opposes the notice and shows cause for not

complying with the conditional order, it is for the

lower authority to conduct enquiry and decide the

case on merits. Here no any such procedure is seen

followed by the lower authority. The notice dated

20/9/2005 would not show that any opportunity was

given to the petitioner to show cause for not

complying with the order.       Though the revision

petitioner denied any further threat, without any

enquiry or finding regarding any threat to be abated,

Annexure A1 order was issued. It is clear violation

of the procedure laid down by CrPC. Therefore, it

would go without saying that the order impugned is

not sustainable and liable to be interfered.





     In the result, this revision petition is allowed.

Annexure A1 order would stand set aside.          The

matter is remitted back to the lower authority for

fresh disposal on merits in accordance with the

procedures laid down after giving an opportunity to

the petitioner to raise her objection.


                                      Sd/-
                               P.S.GOPINATHAN
                                     JUDGE


Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment