Tripura HC Orders Divisional Forest Protection Party to Pay Damages in Illegal Detention of Vehicle Case

Must Read

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus....

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Follow us

An appeal was made by Ranjan Choudhury son of late Chandradoy Choudhury, seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.65,12,000/- because of the loss suffered by the plaintiff from illegal detention of their vehicle by Divisional Forest Protection Party (DFPP) at Champaknagar Forest Drop.

Facts of the case

On 27.09.1995, the said vehicle was seized by the Divisional Forest Protection Party (DFPP) at Champaknagar Forest Drop Gate and Shal timbers were seized from the vehicle. Based on illegal transportation the vehicle was seized by the forest department.

Submissions of the Petitioner

Most of their concern was based on their previous pleas and no new arguments were produced. The plaintiff filed several writs claiming the release of his vehicle from 27.05.1996 to 04.06.1999, the plaintiff also by filing a writ petition claimed for release of his vehicle at Gauhati High Court considering the area of dispute came under their jurisdiction, but all of them were disposed against the favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed damages on the basis that the possession of vehicle by the defendant was unlawful as stated in the judgment and the order passed on 28.02.2014 delivered in WP(C) 391 of 2005 titled as ‘The State of Tripura and another vs. Ranjan Choudhury and another’.

Furthermore, photos were produced by the Appellant showing that the vehicle is in not state of usage at the current time due to the lack of proper basic care from the defendant.

Submissions of the Respondent

The defendants claimed that they are not liable to any such compensation to the plaintiff as the claim was unreasonable. The defendants also stated that all the necessary evidence and facts relevant to the case were not revealed including the necessary party involved. The defendant further accused that these were only allegations produced by the plaintiff on Mala Fide basis and were meant to harass them. Other than questioning the maintainability of the suit the defendant also raised another crucial issue regarding the ownership of the vehicle. The ownership certificate of the vehicle being TRL-3899 was with one Priyavart Choudhury but that person has not been made a party in the suit. On the date of the seizure ownership of the vehicle was limited to Priyavart Choudhury but the ownership had been indisputably transferred to the plaintiff on 14.05.1996. The defendant furthermore stated that right after the seizure of the vehicle a notice was issued but no response was made regarding the same. Then after the issue of the second notice, Shri Moin Pal came to appraise the authorized officer that the vehicle was registered in the name of one Priyavart Choudhury but he had leased out the said vehicle to the plaintiff. The said information was verified by the transport department.

Verdict of the Court

Court after examining all the evidence in detail concluded the verdict providing the petitioner to have their vehicle returned from the possession of the defendant within two months from the date of Judgement upon failure of which the defendant has the right to get disposed of the vehicle without any liability to the petitioner. Also, the court directed the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as the gross compensation covering losses and depreciation that the plaintiff has suffered during the period from 28.02.2014, failing to which the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% from 28.02..2014 till the date of payment.

Click here to view the original judgment


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -