SARGUNAM Vs. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed for the same relief. W.P.(MD)No. 17147 of 2014 has been filed by one Mr.Sargunam, seeking a direction to the respondents to release his tractor with trailer, bearing Regn.No. TN -48 U 0828. W.P.(MD)No. 17161 of 204 has been filed by one Rajkumar, seeking a similar direction to the respondents to release his tractor with trailer, bearing Regn.No. TN -69 AT 0392. Both the vehicles are said to have been seized by the respondents on the ground that they have been used for transporting red sand, illegally, without valid permits.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, being the owners of their respective vehicles, they have been using them for agricultural purposes, in nearby villages. While so, on 06.10.2014, one Saravanaperumal, has engaged their vehicles to carry excess soil from his agricultural lands, covered in Survey No. 507/4, having an extent of 2 -1/2 acres, situated at Paramankurichi Village. While the petitioners' vehicles were carrying excess soil from the said land to another land situated in the same village, the vehicles were intercepted by the 3rd respondent, the Revenue Inspector. Even after verification of the documents, showing that the tractors, along with trailers, are being used only for carrying excess soil for agricultural purposes, the 3rd respondent failed to appreciate the explanation given by the petitioners that they have been using the tractors and trailers only for domestic and agricultural purposes and seized the vehicles as if they were used to transport red sand, illegally and handed them over to the 2nd respondent. The second respondent, the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur, also without even appreciating the explanation presented by the petitioners, initiated proceedings in No. A1/17867/2014, dated 08.10.2014 and entrusted the custody of the vehicle to the 1st respondent on 09.11.2014. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared before the 1st respondent, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur and requested him to release their vehicles. But, none of the explanation offered was considered, as a result, the petitioners have come to this Court.

(3.) THE relief sought for by the petitioners has to be answered in their favour on the basis of Rule 17 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1959, which reads as under: