Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kamalan Vs. the State of Kerala

Kamalan vs The State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 29, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1019862

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kamalan

Respondent

The State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....dated this the 29th july, 2013 judgment the petitioner is aggrieved of ext p3 order passed by the second respondent for the alleged offence under act 28 of 2008, ordering confiscation of the vehicle, however enabling the petitioner to have the same redeemed on satisfaction of 1 = times value of the vehicle. the said order was sought to be challenged by filing crl. appeal 06/2013, leading to ext. p4 verdict passed by the addl. sessions judge-i, mavelikkara confirming the impugned order.2. the petitioner is now before this court challenging the course and proceedings, contending that the entire proceedings are per se wrong and illegal, since the property is not at all a paddy land, as discernible from ext.p2 report of the 5th respondent , who is the convenor of the local level monitoring committee, wherein it has been categorically stated that the property is not included in the data bank register.the learned counsel further submits that since the property is not included in the data bank register, no proceedings will lie under the w.p.(c)no. 18805 of 201.2 provisions of the act 28, in view of the law declared by this court in jafarkhan vs. kochumarakkar ( 2012 (1) klt 49.3. heard the learned government pleader as well.4. the fact remains that ext.p3 order passed by the 2nd respondent got merged with ext.p4 order passed by the addl. sessions court and the said order stands. if at all the petitioner wants to challenge the same, it has to be done either by way of crl. revision under the relevant provisions of the code of criminal procedure or by way of such other measures.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy. reserving the said rights and liberties, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. p.r.ramachandra menon judge lk

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2013 7TH SRAVANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 18805 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : KAMALAN, AGED 4 YEARS S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN, VALIYATHARAYIL, PRAYAR P.O. OACHIRA, ALAPPUZHA-690 547. BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.PRADEEP SRI.ASHOK SURESH RESPONDENTS :

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

3. TAHSILDAR KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688 131.

4. VILLAGE OFFICER KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK ALAPPUZHA-688 131.

5. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE ALAPPUZHA-688 131. R BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 18805 of 2013 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-29/5437. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DD DTD.14.5.2013 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF FEES. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.06/2013. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ks. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 18805 OF 201.......................................................................... Dated this the 29th July, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved of Ext P3 order passed by the second respondent for the alleged offence under Act 28 of 2008, ordering confiscation of the vehicle, however enabling the petitioner to have the same redeemed on satisfaction of 1 = times value of the vehicle. The said order was sought to be challenged by filing Crl. Appeal 06/2013, leading to Ext. P4 verdict passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara confirming the impugned order.

2. The petitioner is now before this Court challenging the course and proceedings, contending that the entire proceedings are per se wrong and illegal, since the property is not at all a paddy land, as discernible from Ext.P2 report of the 5th respondent , who is the Convenor of the Local Level Monitoring Committee, wherein it has been categorically stated that the property is not included in the Data Bank Register.The learned Counsel further submits that since the property is not included in the Data Bank Register, no proceedings will lie under the W.P.(C)No. 18805 OF 201.2 provisions of the Act 28, in view of the law declared by this Court in Jafarkhan vs. Kochumarakkar ( 2012 (1) KLT 49.3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

4. The fact remains that Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent got merged with Ext.P4 order passed by the Addl. Sessions Court and the said order stands. If at all the petitioner wants to challenge the same, it has to be done either by way of Crl. Revision under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by way of such other measures.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedy. Reserving the said rights and liberties, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial