Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
VIJAYAN M.P. – Appellant
Versus
PRIYESH – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of excavator for alleged paddy land conversion. (Para 2) |
| 2. parties argue alternative remedy and third-party innocence. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. section 20 discretion for third-party confiscation based on strict liability. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-3, b) Declare that the seizure of the petitioner’s machinery from the 1st respondent’s property as per Exhibit P-3 is illegal and unsustainable, c) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-6 proceedings of the 3rd respondent.
d) issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, and e) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."
[SIC]
2. The petitioner’s hydraulic excavator, used by the 1st respondent for leveling his property was taken into custody by the 2nd respondent Sub Inspector alleging that the machine was used to convert paddy land, is the submission. According to the petitioner, the Village Officer, Kunjithanni submitt
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
