Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
ABDUL RAZAK – Appellant
Versus
THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALLIKKAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the facts relate to the petitioner's challenges against confiscation action. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the reliance on judicial precedent for determining knowledge in confiscation liability. (Para 3) |
| 3. the final ruling allows the appeal, establishing precedent regarding third-party knowledge. (Para 4) |
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2020 in CMA No.4 of 2018 of the Additional District Judge-III, Manjeri. The petitioner’s excavator loader (JCB) bearing Registration No.KL-17/G- 3337 was seized by the 1st respondent on a mahazar while digging a well in the property of the 7th respondent for collecting drinking water. The allegation against the petitioner is that there was violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short, ‘the 2008 Act’). The request made by the 7th respondent, who hired the petitioner’s vehicle, for releasing the vehicle was turned down and the vehicle was kept in the courtyard of the 2nd respondent exposed to sun and rain. The 6th respondent ordered confiscation of the vehicle. By judgment dated 02.07.2020, the court below dismissed the statutory appeal
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
