PALANISWAMY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that, the vehicles bearing Nos. KL 01 AD 664, KL 52 4260, KL 9T 8153 and KL 52A 3087 belonging to them are stated as seized by the 4th respondent, alleging violation of the provisions under the Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2003.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioner has approached the first respondent for appropriate relief, pointing out the lack of jurisdiction and the incompetence of the authority, who seized the vehicles. It is also stated that, the property wherein the earth was unloaded is a dry land, which is stated as discernible from Ext. P7. THE said report has been forwarded by the Additional Tahasildar to the first respondent and hence the petitioners approached the first respondent for redressal of their grievance. However, without any regard to the contents of Ext. P7, the first respondent sought the authorities of the Motor Vehicles Department to furnish the market value of the vehicles concerned, which according to the petitioners is only to pass adverse orders contrary to the factual and legal position.