Allowed

Najeeb, v. The District Revenue Officer

Madras HC11 Mar 2025WA(MD)/1440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle seized in an Essential Commodities Act case for transporting PDS rice was ordered released on payment of Rs.3,50,000 by the Single Judge. On appeal, the Division Bench reduced the amount to Rs.2,00,000, noting the vehicle had been in respondents' custody for over three and a half years and had deteriorated.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; amount for release of vehicle reduced from Rs.3,50,000 to Rs.2,00,000; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

Najeeb, Vs The District Revenue Officer — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 11.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022 and C.M.P.(MD)No.11595 of 2022

Najeeb

... Appellant

Vs.

1.The District Revenue Officer, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Kuzhithurai,

¶12

Madurai Unit, Kanyakumari District. In Crime No.108of 2021.

¶13

3.The Special Thasildar, Villavankode, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow the writ appeal and set aside the order dated 26-10-2022 in W.P.(MD).No.22301 of 2022 on the file of this Court.

¶15

1/5

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.N.Kamesh

¶19

For Respondents : Mr.K.Balasubramni, Spl. Government Pleader for R1 & R3. Mr.Albert James, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) for R2.

¶20

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

2.The appellant's vehicle was seized in a case arising under the Essential Commodities Act. It was said to have been used for transporting PDS rice. The appellant's vehicle was seized and confiscation order was passed directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- and take the vehicle. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.(MD)No.22301 of 2022. The learned Single Judge granted relief to the appellant and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- and take the vehicle. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ appeal has been filed.

¶23

2/5

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶26

3.The appellant does not have any case on merits. However, one

¶27

factual aspect is in his favour. The vehicle was seized as early as in August, 2021. The order impugned in the writ petition was passed on 26.04.2022. The writ petition was dismissed on 26.10.2022. In other words, for more than 3 ½ years, the appellant's vehicle has been in the custody of the respondents. Obviously, the vehicle's value would have suffered some deterioration. Taking into account this lapse of time, we interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition. The appellant can take back vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Upon payment of Rs.2,00,000/-, the petition mentioned vehicle shall be returned to the appellant. The order of the learned Single Judge is modified accordingly and the writ appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶28

(G.R.S. J.,) & (M.J.R. J.,) 11.03.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

3/5

¶31

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶32

To:

¶33

1.The District Revenue Officer, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District.

¶34

2.The Inspector of Police, Civil Supplies C.I.D., Kuzhithurai, Madurai Unit, Kanyakumari District.

¶35

3.The Special Thasildar, Villavankode, Kanyakumari District.

¶36

4/5

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶39

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶40

ias

¶41

W.A.(MD)No.1440 of 2022

¶42

11.03.2025

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

5/5

Najeeb, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeeb, v. The District Revenue Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Pushpakala, Vs The Secretary to Government

The Project Director, Vs S. Shanmugasundaram

Paulraj(died)(Substituted by)T.Murugananda Prasad, Vs the District Collector

Balamurugan Vs the Commissioner

R. Ramachandran, Vs The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition)

Lakshmi Vs the District Collector