Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. These Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment of the learned single Judge dated 29.11.2016 in WP.(C) No.20960 of 2016 and connected cases. Writ Appeal Nos.2358, 2371, 2386, 2387, 2388 and 2389 of 2016 arise out of W.P.(C) Nos.20960, 20977,21247,21368,20980 and 20818 of 2016 respectively.

2. The aforesaid Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants herein seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the mahazar prepared by the Village Officer, Kollangode-II, Palakkad District, while effecting seizure of bricks from the properties owned/leased out to the appellants. The appellants have also sought for various other reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the bricks seized as per the seizure mahazar prepared by the Village Officer.

Ed. Note: Please See Citation 2017 (1) KLT 183 (Joby v. District Collector)

3. The reliefs sought for in the Writ Petitions were opposed by the respondents.

4. After considering the rival submissions, the learned single Judge by a common judgment dated 29.11.2016 dismissed the Writ Petitions repelling the challenge made by the appellants against the seizure of bricks from their property based on the seizure mahazar prepared by the Village Officer.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge, the appellants/writ petitioners are before this Court in these appeals.

6. We heard learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. Nos.2358, 2386 to 2389 of 2016, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in W.A. No. 2371 of 2016 and also learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

7. Since similar facts are involved in these Writ Appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

8. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of bricks on their respective properties on the strength of D&O licence obtained from Kollangode Grama Panchayat, which were valid for the year 2015-16. The said licenses were issued by Kollangode Grama Panchayat in exercise of its powers under Sections 232, 233, 234 and 254 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is not in dispute that none of those licenses were renewed for the subsequent year, i.e., 2016-17. It is also not in dispute that, the respective properties in which the appellants were running the brick kiln are described as Nilam (paddy land) in the title document/lease deed.

9. The District Collector, Palakkad, the first respondent herein, along with a team of officials inspected the property of the appellants and found large quantity of bricks manufactured and stacked in those properties. Such bricks were seized on the basis of the seizure mahazars issued by the Village Officer and such seizure mahazars were under challenge in the Writ Petitions.

10. It is stated in the seizure mahazars that the bricks manufactured and stacked in the respective properties of the appellants are seized in the presence of the District Collector and a team of officials, since such manufacture was found to be illegal. It is also stated in such seizure mahazars that, as per the data bank, the properties in question fall under the category 'paddy land' and the said properties are suitable for paddy cultivation. On inspection, it was found that the functioning of the brick kilns on such properties are causing obstruction to flow of water. Accordingly, the bricks were seized after preparing seizure mahazar, alleging that such manufacture of bricks is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for brevity the Paddy Land Act). Accordingly, seizure mahazars were issued to the appellants in W.P.(C) Nos.20960, 20818, 20980 and 21368 of 2016, who are the owners of the respective properties in which brick kilns are situated and to the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.20977, 21247 and 21368 of 2016, who claim to be lessees from the owners of paddy land in which the brick kilns are situated.

11. The fact t