The counter petitioner in Order No.B2-4133/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla is the revision petitioner herein. The third respondent herein filed a petition under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the present petitioner alleging that a pala tree standing in the property of the revision petitioner is standing in a dangerous position and unless it is cut and removed, it will cause danger to the life of the third respondent and his family members. On receipt of this, after getting report from the Village Officer, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla had initiated proceedings under Section 133 of the Code and passed a preliminary order under section 133(1) of the Code directing the revision petitioner to cut and remove the tree or show cause as to why the order should not be made absolute and after getting appearance of the parties and conducting enquiry, passed an order under section 138 of the Code directing the respondent/revision petitioner to cut and remove the pala tree at a height of 15 feet. Dissatisfied with the same, the present revision has been filed by the revision petitioner, counter petitioner before the court below.
2. At the request of both the parties, the matter has been referred for mediation and parties have settled their claim before the mediator and executed a settlement agreement which has been forwarded to this Court from the mediation centre in which certain terms have been entered into between the parties as part of the settlement, which will form part of this order.
3. After the receipt of the settlement agreement, the counsel for the third respondent submitted that he is not getting workers to cut the branches of the pala tree due some superstitious belief that if that tree will cut, something untoward will happen to them. Both the parties submitted that they are prepared to aide by the settlement and they are not able to cut and remove the tree and he wanted the assistance of Sub Divisional Magistrate to implement the terms of the agreement.
4. The counsel for the revision petitioner also has no objection for the same. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for both the parties, this Court also felt that terms of the agreement are reasonable and that will meet the requirements of both the parties for the time being and it will restore the original relationship between the parties and this Court felt that the revision petition can be disposed of after setting aside the order passed by the court below to cut and remove the pala tree as mentioned in the final order, but by recording the settlement arrived at between parties as an arrangement to abate the nuisance and if the parties could not cut and remove the same as agreed between them, if an application is filed by the third respondent, who is the petitioner before the court below, to implement the terms of the settlement, then the Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to use official machinery to implement the order to treat this as the final order passed by him and recover the expenses incurred from both the parties as mentioned in the agreement. The settlement agreement will form part of this order.
Office is directed to communicate this order along with the mediation agreement which is appended as part of the order to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for information and compliance as mentioned in the order.
cl /true copy/ Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
P.S to Judge