Case Note & Summary
This criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arose from a dispute between neighbours over three coconut trees located on the petitioner's property allegedly causing danger to the adjacent property of respondent no.4. The petitioner, Santosh R. Prabhu Gaonkar, sought to quash two orders passed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 (PTA): the order dated 10 December 2015 by the Tree Officer directing him to harvest coconuts and install a protective net around the trees, and the confirming order dated 12 May 2016 by the Appellate Authority. The facts revealed that respondent no.4 had complained to the Tree Officer that the three coconut trees, standing at a height of about 9-10 metres, leaned heavily towards his house and caused a constant danger from falling nuts and leaves. The Range Forest Officer's inspection report of 18 November 2013 confirmed that the trees were bent towards the house of respondent no.4 and could cause danger to life and property. The Zonal Agriculture Officer's reports, while noting the trees were young and healthy, recommended putting nets on the tree crowns to prevent falling nuts and leaves. After hearing the parties, the Tree Officer on 10 December 2015 directed the petitioner to harvest all coconuts regularly within three months and to put a strong net on all trees within sixty days. Respondent no.4 appealed to the Appellate Authority, seeking a direction to fell the trees entirely. The Appellate Authority dismissed his appeal on 12 May 2016, observing that the inspection reports did not indicate the trees were in a ruinous condition or posing an imminent danger, and thus felling was not warranted. The petitioner then filed the instant writ petition, challenging both orders as being in excess of jurisdiction. The principal legal issue was whether the Tree Officer had validly invoked Section 12-A of the PTA, which permits the Tree Officer to require lopping or cutting of a tree or its part if it appears to be in a ruinous state or likely to fall and cause injury. The petitioner argued that the section could only be applied if the tree itself was ruinous or about to fall, and since the ZAO reports indicated the trees were healthy, the jurisdictional parameters were not met. He relied on an earlier judgment of the same Court in WPCR 82/2010 between the same parties, which had held that Section 12-A does not confer power to settle private civil disputes. Respondent no.4 contended that the Reports clearly stated the trees were leaning and posed danger, and the phrase any branch or any part thereof in the section meant that even a part of a tree being likely to fall sufficed. It was also argued that the peculiar nature of coconut trees made the danger of falling nuts and leaves a constant threat, and the directions were reasonable and proportionate. The Court analysed the language of Section 12-A, noting that it expressly covered not only the tree as a whole but also any branch or part thereof that is in a ruinous state or likely to fall. The Court accepted the petitioner's submission that the trees were not ruinous, but held that the Range Forest Officer's report that the trees were bent towards the house and could cause danger, together with the ZAO's recommendation for nets, established that parts of the trees—namely, nuts and leaves—were likely to fall and cause injury. The Court thus concluded that the jurisdictional parameters of Section 12-A were satisfied. It distinguished the earlier WPCR 82/2010 by observing that the facts here were different, as the current reports demonstrated actual danger. The Court also held that the directions to harvest and install nets, rather than fell, were proportionate and did not lack jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. However, the Court directed the petitioner to harvest the coconuts and install a strong net within sixty days from the date of the order, failing which the respondent no.4 was given liberty to carry out the work at the petitioner's cost. The decision reaffirmed that Section 12-A can be invoked where part of a tree poses a danger, even if the tree itself is healthy, and that remedial directions short of felling are permissible.
Headnote
A) Preservation of Trees - Jurisdictional Parameters under Section 12-A - Section 12-A, Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 - Whether ruinous state of entire tree is necessary to invoke Section 12-A - Held that the section covers cases where a part of the tree is likely to fall and cause injury, and the leaning of healthy coconut trees with danger of falling nuts and leaves satisfies this requirement (Paras 8-9, 11). B) Preservation of Trees - Proportionate Directions under Section 12-A - Section 12-A, Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 - Whether the Tree Officer could order harvesting and netting instead of felling - Held that the directions were proportionate, and the appeal authority's refusal to order felling was justified as the trees themselves did not require cutting down (Paras 5, 9-10). C) Administrative Law - Exercise of Powers and Earlier Precedent - Section 12-A, Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 - Whether the earlier decision in WPCR 82/2010 barred proceedings - Held that the earlier case's principle that Section 12-A does not settle private civil disputes does not prevent invocation of jurisdiction when the facts show danger to life/property (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tree Officer validly invoked Section 12-A of the Goa, Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 when the coconut trees were healthy but leaning and causing danger from falling nuts and leaves, and whether the directions given were within jurisdiction
Final Decision
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the jurisdictional parameters of Section 12-A were satisfied because the trees were leaning towards the respondent's property and the falling of nuts and leaves posed a danger, even though the trees themselves were healthy. The Tree Officer's directions were proportionate and not in excess of jurisdiction. The Court also distinguished the earlier WPCR 82/2010 on facts.
Law Points
- Section 12-A of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Preservation of Trees Act
- 1984 applies if any part of a tree is likely to fall and cause injury
- not just the entire tree
- Tree Officer can issue proportionate directions
- jurisdictional parameters require satisfaction of ruinous state or likelihood of falling
- leaning trees with danger from falling fruits and leaves satisfy jurisdictional conditions
