{"id":154733,"date":"2010-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-01-02T07:43:38","modified_gmt":"2016-01-02T02:13:38","slug":"p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 13757 of 2010(T)\n\n\n1. P.M.NIZAR, AGED 44 YARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MANOJ P.G., AGED 45 YEARS, S\/O GOPALAN,\n3. VIJEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S\/O.VIJAYAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE S.I. OF POLICE,\n\n3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :22\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n        W.P.(C) Nos.13757, 13758 & 13879 of 2010\n             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````\n        Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           Challenge in these writ petitions is against the final<\/p>\n
orders passed by the District Collector, exercising his powers<\/p>\n
under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of<\/p>\n
Removal of Sand Act, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Briefly stated the facts of these cases that the<\/p>\n
vehicles    involved        in     W.P.(C)         Nos.13757\/2010      and<\/p>\n
13758\/2010 were seized by the second respondent on 04-01-<\/p>\n
2010.   In W.P.(C) No.13757\/2010, Exts.P4 to P6 are the<\/p>\n
mahazars and Exts.P7 to P9 are the final orders passed.<\/p>\n
     3.    In so far as W.P.(C) No.13758\/2010 is concerned,<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 is the mahazar and Ext.P3 is the final order passed by<\/p>\n
the District Collector.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    Similarly, in W.P.(C) No.13879\/2010, the mahazar<\/p>\n
is Ext.P2 and the order passed is Ext.P3.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    The contents of the mahazars, the contentions<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
raised during the course of adjudication and the final orders<\/p>\n
passed in these cases are almost on similar lines and,<\/p>\n
therefore, I deem it only necessary to refer to the contentions<\/p>\n
in W.P.(C) No.13757\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    The mahazar prepared by the second respondent,<\/p>\n
the Sub Inspector of Police, shows that the vehicles were<\/p>\n
found transporting river sand and that on interception, the<\/p>\n
drivers of the vehicles produced P-Forms issued under the<\/p>\n
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, and according<\/p>\n
to the drivers, the sand was ordinary sand purchased from a<\/p>\n
licenced dealer. However, rejecting the above version, the<\/p>\n
vehicles were seized on the allegation that what was<\/p>\n
transported in the vehicles was river sand under the cover of<\/p>\n
the P-Forms which the drivers possessed.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    The matter was referred to the District Collector<\/p>\n
and the District Collector issued notice to the respective<\/p>\n
petitioners.    On behalf of the petitioners, counsel entered<\/p>\n
appearance and urged contentions which are all noticed in<\/p>\n
the order.     However, accepting the version of the second<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent that what was transported was river sand and that<\/p>\n
the petitioners did not produce any acceptable documents to<\/p>\n
uphold the contention that what was transported was ordinary<\/p>\n
sand, the impugned orders of confiscation were issued. It is<\/p>\n
also stated in the order that the District Collector got the value<\/p>\n
of the vehicles assessed by officers of the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Department and it is on that basis, petitioners were directed to<\/p>\n
remit such amount.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Main contention raised by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners is that there is violation of Rule 27 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand<\/p>\n
Rules, 2002. He also relied on the judgments of this Court in<\/p>\n
Subramanian Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (1) KLT 77] and<\/p>\n
Shoukathali Vs. Tahsildar [2009 (1) KLT 640].              It was<\/p>\n
contended that only when Exts.P10 to P12 applications were<\/p>\n
made, the petitioners were issued copies of the mahazars,<\/p>\n
which ought to have been served on them at the time of<\/p>\n
seizure itself. Counsel contended that the fact that there is no<\/p>\n
acceptable specific method to differentiate between river sand<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
and ordinary sand has been accepted in Ext.P15. According<\/p>\n
to him, if the respondents had a case that what was<\/p>\n
transported was not ordinary sand as contended by them, it is<\/p>\n
up to them to establish that fact.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     On the other hand, the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader contended that there is no violation of Rule 27 of the<\/p>\n
Rules. He referred to the mahazar itself to substantiate this<\/p>\n
plea. He also contended that this contention was not urged<\/p>\n
by the petitioners during the course of the adjudication, and<\/p>\n
hence, it was not open to the petitioners to raise the said<\/p>\n
contention in a proceedings before this Court. The learned<\/p>\n
Government Pleader further contended that since it was the<\/p>\n
contention of the petitioners that the sand was ordinary sand,<\/p>\n
it was up to them to produce the materials and prove the said<\/p>\n
fact.\n<\/p>\n
     10. I have considered the submissions. A reading of<\/p>\n
the mahazars shows that the consignment of sand involved in<\/p>\n
these cases were seized on the basis that what was<\/p>\n
transported was river sand.              Admittedly, the mahazars in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
question in these cases were prepared at the scene of the<\/p>\n
occurrence itself and the Sub Inspector of Police, who had<\/p>\n
prepared the mahazars had the benefit of examining the<\/p>\n
consignment. In such a situation, unless the petitioners have<\/p>\n
succeeded in establishing any malafides on the part of the<\/p>\n
petitioners, this Court cannot lightly reject this factual finding,<\/p>\n
based only on the unsubstantiated averments contained in the<\/p>\n
writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
      11. A reading of the impugned orders passed by the<\/p>\n
District Collector shows that the District Collector has<\/p>\n
accepted the findings of the Sub Inspector of Police that what<\/p>\n
was transported was river sand. On the other hand, if as<\/p>\n
contended by the petitioners, it was ordinary sand, in my view,<\/p>\n
petitioners     should      have        produced evidence    either<\/p>\n
documentary or oral, before the District Collector and should<\/p>\n
have substantiated the said contention. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
they relied only on the passes issued under Rule 48K which<\/p>\n
did not substantiate their contentions. Therefore, petitioners<\/p>\n
fail to prove their case and for that reason, the finding of the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
District Collector cannot be said to be erroneous.<\/p>\n
      12. In so far as the plea of violation of Rule 27 is<\/p>\n
concerned, Rule 27 requires that the mahazar should be<\/p>\n
attested by two witnesses.               A reading of the mahazars<\/p>\n
produced in these writ petitions shows that the mahazars<\/p>\n
have been attested by the drivers of the respective vehicles<\/p>\n
and also by the Police Constables. Therefore, as far as the<\/p>\n
attestation part is concerned, there cannot be any violation of<\/p>\n
Rule 27.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Then, what remains is that the plea of the<\/p>\n
petitioners that the copies of mahazars were not served on<\/p>\n
them.    As rightly pointed out by the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader, it is seen that this contention was not urged before<\/p>\n
the District Collector. Although it was contended before me<\/p>\n
that still these contentions were urged, nothing has been<\/p>\n
placed on record to substantiate this.            Therefore, such a<\/p>\n
contention having not been urged before the District Collector,<\/p>\n
I am persuaded to think that the petitioners cannot be<\/p>\n
permitted to urge this contention for the first time before this<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.13757\/10 & connected cases
\n                                     : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. Further, although it is not specifically stated in the<\/p>\n
counter affidavit, the learned Government Pleader submits<\/p>\n
before me that he has gone through the original documents<\/p>\n
and it shows that the mahazars were in fact served on the<\/p>\n
petitioners at the time of seizure of the vehicles itself. Be that<\/p>\n
as it may, now that I decline to entertain this contention raised<\/p>\n
for the first time, I do not find force in this contention either.<\/p>\n
      14. Then, what remains is the correctness of the value<\/p>\n
of the vehicles. As far as this aspect is concerned, orders<\/p>\n
itself show the value of the vehicles have been fixed based on<\/p>\n
the valuation done by the officers of the Motor Vehicles<\/p>\n
Department, who certainly have the competency to fix the<\/p>\n
value of the vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, writ petitions fail and are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                          (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
\naks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 13757 of 2010(T) 1. P.M.NIZAR, AGED 44 YARS, … Petitioner 2. MANOJ P.G., AGED 45 YEARS, S\/O GOPALAN, 3. VIJEESH, AGED 23 YEARS, S\/O.VIJAYAN, Vs 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, … Respondent 2. THE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1206,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\",\"name\":\"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010"},"wordCount":1206,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010","name":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-02T02:13:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-m-nizar-vs-the-district-collector-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.M.Nizar vs The District Collector on 22 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=154733"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154733\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}