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.

Petitioner Vs. Respondent

Petitioner vs Respondent

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Aug 10, 2016
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1189124

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
Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
W.P (MD) No. 12283 of 2016
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

Petitioner

Respondent

Respondent

Excerpt

m. venugopal, j. 1. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. it transpires from the averments made at para three of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner interalia to the effect that his driver has shown all the original documents viz., registration certificate, insurance, goods carriage permit and permit chit, issued for transporting gravel. but, unfortunately, without looking into such documents, mechanically, the second respondent / sub-collector, thackalay, kanyakumari district, had directed the third respondent / tahsildar, vilavankodu, kanyakumari district, to drag the vehicle to the second respondent's office. accordingly, the vehicle was taken and made to be parked inside the campus of the second respondent's office. 3. at this stage, the learned government advocate, on instructions, informs this court that, as the vehicle viz., 'taras tipper lorry', bearing registration no.tn-45-al-7399 was found engaged in transportation of minor mineral, without any transit pass and in filling up the wet land with earth for making it unsuitable for cultivation, blocking the passage of irrigation channels, the vehicle was seized with the consignment. 4. in view of the divergent stand taken by the respective parties, the second respondent / sub-collector, thackalay, kanyakumari district, is directed to file a detailed counter traversing upon the various paragraphs of the averments found in the writ petition. in this regard, time is granted to the second respondent till 19.08.2016. 5. registry is directed to list the matter on 22.08.2016, in the caption, 'adjourned admission', as a first case.

Full Judgment

M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. It transpires from the averments made at para three of the affidavit filed by the Writ Petitioner interalia to the effect that his driver has shown all the original documents viz., Registration Certificate, Insurance, Goods Carriage Permit and Permit Chit, issued for transporting gravel. But, unfortunately, without looking into such documents, mechanically, the Second Respondent / Sub-Collector, Thackalay, Kanyakumari District, had directed the Third Respondent / Tahsildar, Vilavankodu, Kanyakumari District, to drag the vehicle to the Second Respondent's Office. Accordingly, the vehicle was taken and made to be parked inside the campus of the Second Respondent's Office.

3. At this stage, the Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, informs this Court that, as the vehicle viz., 'Taras Tipper Lorry', bearing Registration No.TN-45-AL-7399 was found engaged in transportation of minor mineral, without any transit pass and in filling up the wet land with earth for making it unsuitable for cultivation, blocking the passage of irrigation channels, the vehicle was seized with the consignment.

4. In view of the divergent stand taken by the respective parties, the Second Respondent / Sub-Collector, Thackalay, Kanyakumari District, is directed to file a detailed counter traversing upon the various paragraphs of the averments found in the Writ Petition. In this regard, time is granted to the Second Respondent till 19.08.2016.

5. Registry is directed to list the matter on 22.08.2016, in the caption, 'Adjourned Admission', as a first case.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial