Ali vs The Village Officer, Kappur ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 21472 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
 FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                  WP(C) NO. 13211 OF 2011
PETITIONER:

          ALI, S/O.KUNJAHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS,
          KANIKKARA VALAPPIL HOUSE, MOTHUR P.O.,679578,,
          POTTUR DESOM, VATTAMKULAM VILLAGE,
          PONNANI TALUK,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
          (OWNER OF JCB BEARING,
          REGISTRATION NO. KL-8-1M-9989)
          BY ADV SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAPPUR VILLAGE
          KAPPUR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678014.
    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERRDO
          OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678014.
    3     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          PALAKKAD, PIN-678014.




          BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PREMCHAND R NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13211 OF 2011
                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the first

respondent-Village Officer on 27.04.2011 alleging that the

driver of the petitioner used the vehicle for filling up a

paddy land and therefore, violated the provisions of the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,

2008. He further submits that the Village Officer did not

have the authority to seize the vehicle and therefore, filed

the above writ petition challenging the seizure of the

vehicle and also for a direction to consider the

representation filed by him before the second respondent.

2. On admission, this Court directed the vehicle to

be released on the petitioner executing a bond in favour

of the second respondent and he would produce the

vehicle and when when called for; and that he will not

transfer or alienate the vehicle except with the permission

of this Court.

3. In the above circumstances, since even WP(C) NO. 13211 OF 2011

according to the petitioner, the second respondent is the

authority consider the validity of the seizure of his vehicle,

it is only just and proper that a decision is taken on Ext.P2

representation by the second respondent, in accordance

with law after hearing the petitioner within a period of

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

4. Further actions will be dependent on the orders

to be passed by the second respondent as

aforementioned.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE dlk 29.10.2021 WP(C) NO. 13211 OF 2011

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16626/2013

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID LETTR ISSUED BY THE FIST RESPONDENT TO THE SUB INSPECTOR, THRITHALA POLICE STATION.

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2011 EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 08.04.2011 IN WPC NO.11491 OF 2011