Allahabad High Court: Tej Prakash Compensation Exceeds ₹15 Lakh for Seized Vehicle

• The Allahabad High Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to pay over ₹15 lakh in compensation to Tej Prakash.
• The compensation is for a vehicle seized by Mirzapur police in 2023 on suspicion of illegal cattle transport.
• Justice Sandeep Jain ruled that the seizure was based on "conjectures and surmises" without independent evidence.
• The court stated that border proximity alone does not constitute proof of illegal transportation.
• The state must pay ₹40,000 per month from September 18, 2023, until the vehicle's release.

For such actions to be legally permissible, there must exist "positive and cogent evidence" indicating that the vehicle's destination was indeed outside the state or that the transportation was specifically intended for slaughter.

The Allahabad High Court has mandated the Uttar Pradesh government to disburse compensation exceeding ₹15 lakh to an individual whose vehicle was unlawfully seized. This directive stems from a 2023 incident where Mirzapur police confiscated the vehicle, alleging it was being used to transport two bullocks to West Bengal for slaughter. The case, officially titled Tej Prakash v State of Uttar Pradesh and 4 Others, saw Justice Sandeep Jain presiding over the matter. The police action was based purely on suspicion, without concrete evidence to substantiate the claims of illegal animal transport.

The vehicle owner, Tej Prakash, faced the confiscation of his property due to these unsubstantiated allegations. The court's intervention highlights a critical examination of police procedures in vehicle seizure cattle slaughter compensation cases. The initial seizure and subsequent confiscation order were found to be predicated on mere assumptions rather than any verifiable facts, leading to the substantial compensation order against the state.

In his ruling, Justice Sandeep Jain meticulously dismantled the basis of the police's actions, emphasizing that the seizure and confiscation were founded on "conjectures and surmises" entirely devoid of independent supporting evidence. The court specifically addressed the police's reasoning that since Mirzapur borders Bihar, the cattle must have been destined for slaughter in West Bengal. Justice Jain unequivocally stated that the mere existence of an international or inter-State boundary does not, by itself, constitute proof of illegal transportation. This aspect of the Justice Sandeep Jain vehicle seizure judgment is crucial for establishing legal standards.

The court further clarified that no legal presumption of illegal activity, such as transportation for slaughter or movement outside Uttar Pradesh, can be drawn solely because a vehicle is intercepted in a border district. For such actions to be legally permissible, there must exist "positive and cogent evidence" indicating that the vehicle's destination was indeed outside the state or that the transportation was specifically intended for slaughter. This ruling sets a high bar for illegal cattle transport evidence, moving away from mere geographical inference.

This landmark decision by the Allahabad High Court carries significant implications for law enforcement practices and property rights within Uttar Pradesh. The Mirzapur police confiscation ruling not only quashed the original confiscation order but also directed the immediate release of the seized vehicle. Crucially, the court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government compensation order to Tej Prakash, specifying a payment rate of ₹40,000 per month. This compensation is to be calculated from September 18, 2023, the date of the vehicle's initial seizure, until the actual date of its release.

The Allahabad High Court Tej Prakash compensation directive underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding citizens against arbitrary state actions. It establishes a clear precedent that authorities must present concrete, verifiable evidence for vehicle seizures related to alleged illegal cattle transport, rather than relying on suspicion or geographical proximity. This judgment reinforces the principle that property cannot be confiscated based on conjecture, thereby offering a vital safeguard for individuals against unlawful state interference and potentially leading to more challenges against similar seizures.

This ruling establishes a precedent requiring 'positive and cogent evidence' for vehicle seizures related to alleged illegal cattle transport, rather than mere suspicion or geographical proximity. Lawyers should advise clients that seizures based solely on conjecture are challengeable, potentially leading to compensation claims against the state for unlawful confiscation and detention of property.

Source: Original reporting via legal news source