In a tale of neighborhood rivalry, a conflict over a coconut tree between two Goa residents escalated to the Bombay High Court, which was called upon to mediate the dispute. At the heart of the matter was the question of whether a nylon net should be installed around the tree to catch its fruits and falling leaves.
The drama began when Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar, a Bardez resident, lodged a complaint on July 17 of the previous year, claiming that his neighbor Sanjiv Kemlo Simepurushkar’s coconut tree posed a serious threat. He argued that the tree was dangerously leaning towards his house, endangering both life and property.
Initially, the Deputy Collector of Mapusa ordered the tree to be cut down. However, this decision was later overturned by the Conservator of Forests (Appellate Authority). Despite saving the tree, the ruling came with a catch: the owner was required to install a sturdy nylon net with a fine mesh to prevent flowers and coconuts from falling onto the complainant’s property. Additionally, the owner was tasked with regularly cleaning the tree’s dead fronds and harvesting the coconuts every three months, with six-monthly compliance reports to be submitted to the Deputy Collector’s office.
While the tree owner was pleased that his beloved coconut tree was spared, he found the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority to be excessive and burdensome. Consequently, he sought relief from the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Justice Bharat P. Deshpande, who presided over the case, observed that the Conservator of Forests’ decision indicated no immediate danger to the complainant’s life or property, negating the need to cut down the tree. The court noted that the tree stood 8.7 meters away from the complainant’s house, and while the tree’s crown did lean towards the residence, the owner had already committed to maintaining the tree, including the regular removal of coconuts and dead leaves.
Justice Deshpande further stated that the requirement to install a nylon net and submit periodic compliance reports was unwarranted and overly harsh. As a result, the court modified the Appellate Authority’s order, eliminating these conditions.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sailee Kenny, with Additional Government Advocate Amogh Arlekar representing the state. Advocates Gautami Kamat and Harsh Kamat appeared for the complainant, Shekhar Manohar Simepurushkar.