Kerala HC Dismisses Writ Over Neighbour's Coconut Tree, Tells Parties to Settle Over Tea

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a writ petition challenging a single coconut tree on a neighbour's property, finding no genuine danger and faulting ego over evidence.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed a writ petition filed by a Thiruvananthapuram resident who sought action against his neighbour's solitary coconut tree, alleging it posed a danger to his property and vehicles. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, sitting singly, found that the Panchayat, the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions had all examined the complaint and taken steps, and that an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the court itself reported no imminent danger. The court declined to invoke Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and disposed of the petition with an observation that the dispute — which had travelled through multiple authorities before reaching the High Court — was rooted in ego rather than any genuine legal threat.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner, Gopinath R, aged 47, resides at Puravoorkonam, Vazhayila, Karakulam, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram. His neighbour, the 9th respondent Renjith S, lives on the western side of the same locality. A single coconut tree stands on Renjith S's property, close to the compound wall separating the two plots. The petitioner holds 2.23 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 486/6-1-3, Karakulam Village, Nedumangadu Taluk.

The petitioner's case was that the coconut tree caused severe damage to him and his family. He filed a complaint before the Karakulam Grama Panchayat (8th respondent) in July 2023. When no action followed, he approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nedumangadu (5th respondent), in June 2024. The Village Officer, Karakulam, submitted a report. The Panchayat then issued proceedings dated 18 September 2024 (Ext. P5), concluding that there was no danger and that the lean of the tree towards the petitioner's side could be corrected by tying it with an iron string towards the 9th respondent's property.

Unsatisfied, the petitioner also obtained information under the Right to Information Act and eventually filed a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions in April 2024. The Panchayat submitted a report to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman disposed of the matter by directing the Panchayat Secretary to extend the existing iron net and resolve the issue, and reminded the 9th respondent that compensation would be payable if any financial loss occurred. Despite all of this, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 24843 of 2025 before the High Court.

Advocate Commissioner's Findings

When the writ petition came up for consideration, the petitioner sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The court appointed Advocate Sachin George Aramban as Commissioner and fixed his remuneration at Rs. 1,00,000, which the petitioner paid.

The Commissioner submitted a detailed report with photographs. His findings were as follows: the coconut tree is situated in the 9th respondent's property, in close proximity to the compound wall. The tree appears well-rooted. Although the lower portion of the trunk is comparatively thinner than the upper portion, the Commissioner found it does not presently pose an imminent danger of falling. The tree is tied with an iron string within the 9th respondent's property, causing it to lean slightly away from the petitioner's side. The Commissioner noted that periodic tightening of the iron string would likely incline the tree further towards the 9th respondent's property.

On the protective net, the Commissioner reported that it presently serves as a safeguard against the danger apprehended by the petitioner. He suggested that if the width of the net were extended and periodic cleaning of the tree carried out, this would constitute an effective remedial measure. The Commissioner also noted that the Panchayat Secretary had already directed the 9th respondent to extend the iron net and that periodic inspections would be conducted. At the time of inspection, the tree had approximately 30 to 35 tender coconuts.

The Commissioner's conclusion, extracted in the judgment, read: “if the width of the iron net is increased; and if routine and periodic cleaning of the tree is continued, the dispute may be effectively resolved.”

The petitioner objected to this report as well. He submitted a pen drive containing two videos. One video showed a coconut tree climber accidentally dropping a palm onto the boundary wall during cleaning, after which it fell into the petitioner's front yard. The court observed that the climber retrieved it by leaning from the boundary wall without stepping onto the petitioner's land — and that the petitioner's characterisation of this as hostile conduct illustrated the depth of the enmity between the parties rather than any legal grievance.

Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

The petitioner's counsel pressed for a direction to the Panchayat to take immediate action under Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Section 238 of the Act empowers a Panchayat to act where any tree, branch, portion of a tree, or fruit of a tree is likely to fall and thereby endanger any person, structure, or cultivation.

Justice Kunhikrishnan held that the provision was simply not attracted on the facts. In the light of the Panchayat's own proceedings in Ext. P5, the Ombudsman's directions in Ext. P9, and the Advocate Commissioner's report, the court found there was “absolutely no danger because of the existence of the coconut tree” in the 9th respondent's property. The court added that if the protective net needed further extension, the Panchayat could issue the necessary directions to the 9th respondent without any intervention from the High Court.

The Court's Observations on the Litigation

Justice Kunhikrishnan was pointed in his assessment of how the matter had reached the High Court. The judgment described the case as “a classic example of unnecessary litigation arising out of a trivial neighbourhood dispute” that had moved from the local authority to the revenue authority, then to the Ombudsman, and finally to the High Court. The court observed that the petitioner's grievance, even if genuine at some stage, had been magnified by personal differences and ego clashes between the two families.

The court noted that at a time when courts are overburdened with serious civil, criminal, and other matters, judicial time was being consumed by a dispute over a single coconut tree that multiple authorities had already addressed. The judgment observed that the law cannot substitute basic neighbourly goodwill, and that neighbours sharing boundaries, roads, and resources in a close-knit community are expected to live in mutual trust and cooperation.

The court quoted Matthew 22:39 from the Holy Bible — “Love your neighbour as yourself” — and directed the petitioner and the 9th respondent to read those words and sit together over coffee or tea to resolve the dispute.

On costs, the court observed that this was a fit case for imposing costs on both the petitioner and the 9th respondent for wasting judicial time. Taking a lenient view, however, the court chose not to impose costs and exonerated both parties.

Order

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of WP(C) No. 24843 of 2025 on 18 June 2026. The court declined to interfere with the actions taken by the Panchayat and the Ombudsman. It held that Section 238 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was not attracted. The Karakulam Grama Panchayat (8th respondent) was directed to monitor whether any genuine danger to the petitioner arises from the coconut tree in the future. No costs were imposed. The petition was disposed of with the observation that the parties should resolve their differences amicably.