Disposed

Rajamma, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Kerala HC24 Nov 2022WP(C)/32343/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of a seizure order affecting her JCB vehicle and directed release of custody. This Court disposed of the petition by directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to forward files to the District Collector for expedited decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st Respondent to forward files to District Collector within two weeks; Collector to decide within one month.

Rajamma, Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 32343 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONER

¶5

RAJAMMA,
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O CHANDRAN, GURUKRIPA, CHERUKOLE,
CHENNITHALA.

¶6

BY ADVS.
R.SUNIL KUMAR
A.SALINI LAL
NIKITHA SURESH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHENGANNUR-689121.

¶9

2 THE ASST. ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SECTION, IRRIGATION OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM- 690502.

¶10

3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER , MANNAR POLICE STATION , MANNAR-689622.

¶11

Addl 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶12

IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER
ORDER DATED 24.11.2022

¶13

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.32343 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2022

¶19

The petitioner, who is owner of a JCB bearing registration No.KL-16E-8892, seeks to quash Ext.P3 and direct the 1^st respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate to dispose of Ext.P2 within a period of two weeks.

¶20

The petitioner states that on 16.04.2022, the petitioner gave her JCB on hire for levelling the property of a third person. While the JCB was levelling the property, the 3^rd respondent-Station House Officer seized the vehicle alleging that clay reclaimed from Kuttamperoor River was used for levelling the property.

¶21

The petitioner states that the allegations made are incorrect and unsustainable. The JCB is in the custody of the 3^rd respondent since 16.04.2022. Unless the JCB is released and custody of JCB is given to the petitioner, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury.

¶22

WP(C) NO.32343 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that as the incident occurred on 16.04.2022, the Mahazar and other necessary details might have been forwarded to the superior authorities. If the petitioner approaches the District Collector, the District Collector can consider the claim of the petitioner for interim custody/release of the JCB. The Government Pleader pointed out that the property in question is included in the Land Data Bank.

¶25

In view of the fact that the JCB was taken custody of on 16.04.2022, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner approaches the District Collector, the District Collector shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner expeditiously.

¶26

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-Sub Divisional Magistrate to forward all relevant documents and files relating to the case to the District

¶27

WP(C) NO.32343 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

Collector within a period of two weeks, if it is not already forwarded. The District Collector shall take a decision in the

¶30

matter, within a further period of one month.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.32343 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32343/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF
VEHICLE BEARING NO: KL-16 E 8892.
Exhibit P2COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16/4/22.
Exhibit P3COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
18/4/22.

¶40

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL

Rajamma, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamma, v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnikrishnan Vs the Chief Town Planner

Offar P.S Vs the State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vr. Vs State of Kerala

Sreeram Vs State of Kerala

Adwaith., Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Sijo George Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer