A heated dispute between two neighbors over a coconut tree recently reached the Bombay High Court, which was asked to determine whether a nylon net was necessary around the tree to catch falling fruits and dead leaves [Sanjiv Kemlo Simepurushkar v. Union of India].
The dispute began when Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar, a resident of Bardez, filed a complaint on July 17 of the previous year. He claimed that the coconut tree on his neighbor Sanjiv Kemlo Simepurushkar’s property was dangerously leaning towards his house, posing a threat to life and property.
Although the Deputy Collector of Mapusa initially ordered the tree to be cut down, the Conservator of Forests (Appellate Authority) later reversed that decision.
However, the relief from cutting down the tree came with conditions—the tree owner was required to install a strong nylon net with fine mesh to prevent flowers and fruits from falling onto the complainant’s property. Additionally, the tree owner was instructed to regularly remove mature, dead, and dying fronds and to harvest the coconuts every three months. He was also required to submit six-monthly compliance reports to the office of the Deputy Collector.
While the tree owner was satisfied that the tree would not be cut down, he was unhappy with the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority. As a result, he took the matter to the Goa Bench of the High Court.
Justice Bharat P. Deshpande noted that the Conservator of Forests’ order indicated there was no imminent danger to the complainant’s life or property that would necessitate cutting down the tree.
“Admittedly, the tree is located 8.70 meters away from the complainant’s house. Although the crown of the tree leans towards the house, the petitioner has provided an undertaking to perform regular maintenance, including removing coconuts and dead leaves periodically,” the High Court stated.
Taking into account the circumstances under which the case reached the High Court, Justice Deshpande said that the tree owner’s assurance of maintenance should have been considered in his appeal.
“The directions from the concerned authority, requiring the petitioner to install a strong nylon net with fine mesh to catch falling fruits and leaves, are unwarranted and unnecessary. Similarly, the requirement for the petitioner to submit six-monthly compliance reports is also deemed harsh and unnecessary,” the Court ruled.
The Court modified the Appellate Authority’s order and quashed the directions imposed on the tree owner.
Advocate Sailee Kenny represented the petitioner, while Additional Government Advocate Amogh Arlekar represented the State. Advocates Gautami Kamat and Harsh Kamat appeared for respondent Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar.
