IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20234 of 2011(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- R.MANOJ, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, REKHA NIVAS, KULANGARABHAGOM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.R.NIKHIL, SRI.ARUN BABU. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 013. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHAVARA VILLAGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 583. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHAVARA POLICE STATION, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 583. 4. SMT.LEKSHMI, RESIDING AT LKSHMI BHAVANAM, THOTTTINUVADAKKU, CHAVARA VILLAGE, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 583. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.R. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.20234/2011: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 27/05/2011 FORWARDED BY THE R.2. TO THE R.1. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 02/07/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).20234/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the registered owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL-02-Q-9628. The vehicle loaded with ordinary sand was stopped by the second respondent on 27.5.2011 and was seized. Thereafter Ext.P1 report was submitted to the first respondent alleging that the seizure was for violation of 'Kerala Land Utilization Act'. Ext.P2 is the application made by the petitioner requesting the first respondent to release the vehicle on interim custody. Orders thereon were also not passed. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the seizure evidenced by Ext.P1 and to release the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. It is true that Ext.P1 report was submitted stating that seizure was for violation of the 'Kerala Land Utilisation Act'. However, the seizure obviously must be with reference to the Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Even if it is taken to be so, the Land Utilisation Order does not provide for seizure of vehicles. Therefore, if the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are under the Land Utilisation Order, seizure of the vehicle has no W.P.(C).20234/11 2 sanction of law and therefore, vehicle has to be released to the petitioner. 3. However, if proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 are initiated under any other enactment authorizing seizure of the vehicle, respondents are entitled to continue the same. 4. Therefore, I direct that on production of a copy of this judgment, first respondent, to whom the matter has been reported, shall examine the case of the petitioner and if proceedings initiated against him are under the Land Utilisaiton Order, vehicle shall be released to the petitioner forthwith. On the other hand, if the proceedings initiated is under Act 28 of 2008, or any other enactment, such proceedings will continue and it will be open to the petitioner to move the appropriate authority seeking interim custody of the vehicle. It is directed that if any such application is made in that regard, orders thereon will be passed without any delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs