Bombay High Court steps in to decide dispute over coconut tree between Goa neighbours

A heated dispute between two neighbours over a coconut tree recently reached the Bombay High Court which was called upon to decide whether a nylon net was needed around the tree to catch the fruits and dead leaves [Sanjiv Kemlo Simepurushkar v.Union of India]..Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar, a resident of Bardez, on July 17 last year had filed a complaint alleging that the coconut tree on his neighbour Sanjiv Kemlo Simepurushkar's property was dangerously swinging towards his house and was posing a threat to life and property.Though the Deputy Collector of Mapusa had ordered cutting down of the tree, the Conservator of Forests (Appellate Authority) later overturned the decision.However, the relief against cutting of the tree came with conditions - the tree owner was directed to put up of a strong nylon net having fine mesh to arrest the fall of flowers and fruits on the complainant's property.The tree owner was also asked to regularly clean the mature, dead and dying fronds and harvest the coconuts every 3 months. Further, he was directed to submit six-monthly compliance reports to the office of Deputy Collector.Though happy with the order against cutting down of the coconut tree, its owner was aggrieved by the conditions set by Appellate Authority and, therefore moved the Goa Bench of High Court..Justice Bharat P Deshpande noted that the Conservator of Forests' order clearly showed that there was no imminent danger to life and property of the complainant for the purpose of directing cutting of the tree. "Admittedly, the tree is at a distance of 8.70 mts. away from the residential house of the complainant. Though, it is observed that the crown of the tree is leaning towards the residential house of the complainant, the Petitioner has given an undertaking ... that he will carry out the maintenance work and remove all coconuts and dead leaves on the periodical basis," the High Court stated..Having taken note of the background in which the case reached the High Court, Justice Deshpande said once the tree owner had given the undertaking to carry out the maintenance work, his assurance should have been considered while deciding his appeal."Directions of the concerned authority thereby directing the Petitioner to put up strong nylon net having fine mesh to arrest the fall of fruits and leaves on to the property of the Respondent No. 4 is clearly unwarranted and unnecessary. Similarly, the direction that the Petitioner shall submit six monthly compliance report to the officer/SDO-I, Mapusa is also considered to be harsh and unnecessary," the Court ruled..The Court thus modified the Appellate Authority's order and quashed the directions issued by it to the tree owner. .Advocate Sailee Kenny appeared for the petitioner.Additional Government Advocate Amogh Arlekar represented the State.Advocates Gautami Kamat and Harsh Kamat appeared for the Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar, the respondent.[Read Judgment]