The petitioners challenged an order confiscating an excavator, claiming they were not heard under Section 20 of the Paddy Land Act. The court held that since the actual user/possessor was heard, the statutory requirement was met and the order cannot be interfered with as the authority was functus officio.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/25TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 12549 of 2016 (P)
PETITIONER(S) :
VAIGUNDAVASAN P. S/O.PERIYASAMY, 7/211, KARUNGALIMEDU, NAGAMARAI, PENNAGARAM TALUK, DHARMAPURAI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE.
MURUGAN G., S/O.GOPALAN, 1/1.70, VEDIKKARANOOR, KARUNKALLUR, METTUR TALUK, SALEM DISTRICT, TAMILNADU STATE.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ZACHARIAH ERUTHICKEL
RESPONDENT(S) :
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE- 680 003.
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 12549 of 2016 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.TN-45-BZ-5413.
EXT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B/6/10447/15 DATED NIL/06/2015, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/02/2016 WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER, ALONG WITH THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR IT, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT, AND THE POSTAL RECEIPT SHOWING REGISTRATION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.12549 of 2016 - P
====================== Dated this the 17th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are aggrieved with Ext.P2 order passed
by the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for brevity 'the Paddy Land Act'). The petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner is the registered owner of the Excavator, which was the subject matter of the proceedings under the Paddy Land Act, the 2nd petitioner is its driver and that the petitioners were not heard under Section 20 of the Paddy Land Act, which violates sub-section (2) Section 20 of the Paddy Land Act.
same was passed after hearing one Shoukathali, S/o Muhammed, who had also approached this Court with a writ petition,
2
W.P.(C) No.12549 of 2016 - P
numbered as W.P.(C) No.3081-15, claiming ownership over the vehicle and seeking expeditious consideration of the confiscation proceedings under Section 20 of the Paddy Land Act. The petitioners too, in the writ petition specifically contend that the vehicle was entrusted with Shoukathali, S/o Muhammed, on the basis of an oral agreement between the 1st petitioner and the said petitioner in W.P(C) 3081 of 2015 for doing contract work. In such circumstance, the present contention of the 1st petitioner that he being the registered owner was not heard, cannot be countenanced.
3
W.P.(C) No.12549 of 2016 - P
possession of the vehicle, on the basis of a valid agreement admitted by the registered owner that the confiscation proceedings were concluded and the vehicle confiscated. In such circumstance, the petitioners' contention that Section 20(2) of the Paddy Land Act was not complied with, cannot be countenanced.
4
W.P.(C) No.12549 of 2016 - P
confiscation. In such circumstance, this Court is not inclined to either interfere with Ext.P2 nor direct any consideration of the representation.
The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SB/17/10/2016
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Collector complied with Section 20 of the Paddy Land Act by not hearing the registered owner of the confiscated excavator.
Whether the aggrieved registered owner can file an appeal after the authority has become functus officio.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vaigundavasnan P.
Murugan G.
State of Kerala
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
