IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32771 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED RASHEED C.T., S/O.MOOSA C.T., CHEMBRATHODI HOUSE, VETTILAPARA P.O., AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 701. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670 645. 3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAITHIRI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673 576. GP SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32771 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 24-5-2011 AS NO.K-2341/11. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED, 10-8-2011 AS NL.L2/14/61/11-K.DIS. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MALAPPURAM IN RESPECT OF VEHICLE NO.KL-11A/6831. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32771/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The issue raised in this writ petition is concerning a Mini Lorry bearing registration No.KL-11A/6831. According to the petitioner, after he had purchased the vehicle, proceedings under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, were initiated against the vehicle. At that stage petitioner contested the matter. However, his claim was rejected on the ground that he was not the registered owner of the vehicle, at that stage. This order was confirmed by the revisional authority, the first respondent also. While so petitioner got the registration transferred in his favour and relying on Ext.P3, registration certificate, petitioner submits that presently he is the registered owner. Now the petitioner's claims is that the respondents should get the value of the vehicle assessed and that on the petitioner remitting the said value, vehicle should be released to him. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I see nothing objectionable in accepting the plea of the petitioner, W.P.(C).32771/11 2 for the reason that as on date, going by Ext.P3 registration certificate, petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions - If the vehicle is still not disposed of, on the production of a copy of this judgment, concerned among the respondents will get the value of the vehicle assessed by a competent Officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Once the value of the vehicle is assessed as above, and if the petitioner remits the said value, respondents will release the vehicle to the petitioner, on the production of proof that he is the registered owner of the vehicle in question. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs