Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PV KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SATHYAN – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the dispute involving seizure of excavation equipment for wetland violations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. distinction between landowner liability and third-party owner strict liability in confiscation processes. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court grants conditional release of seized property through bonds and sureties. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any such other appropriate writ, direction or orders commanding the respondents to release the excavator /JCB bearing registration No. KL-56-S- 0449, seized by the 2nd respondent, unconditionally to the petitioner, forthwith.
ii. Declare that the seizure of the excavator/JCB owned by the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 mahazar by the 2nd respondent is per se illegal.
iii. Dispense with the filing of translation of all vernacular documents.
iv. Grant such other reliefs to deem fit at the facts and circumstances of the case.
[SIC]
2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a JCB/Excavator bearing registration No.KL-56-S-0449, which was seized by the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, the property is included in the data bank as ‘nanja’ and there is vi
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
