SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 250

IN THE HIGHCOURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Amity Rock Products – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.23829 of 2020
Decided on : 08-01-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Philip J. Vettickattu
For the Respondents: Government Pleader (K.J. Manuraj)

The seizure of a vehicle under Section 19 of the Paddy Act, 2008 requires evidence of actual use for reclamation activity. Mere apprehension is not enough.

Headnote:

Seizure of Vehicle - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 19 - The court analyzes Section 19 of the Paddy Act, 2008, which allows for the seizure of a vehicle if it has been used for reclamation of paddy land or wetland. The court emphasizes that actual use for reclamation is required and mere apprehension is not sufficient. The court finds that there is no evidence of such use in this case, leading to the quashing of the proceedings and the release of the vehicle.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the seizure of a vehicle based on the apprehension that it was being used for the reclamation of paddy land or wetland. The relevant provision is Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008. The vehicle was seized near converted land. The court finds that the vehicle can only be seized if it has actually been used for reclamation activity. Since there is no evidence of such use, the proceedings against the petitioner are deemed illegal and unsustainable. The vehicle is ordered to be released to the petitioner.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzes the provisions of the Paddy Act, 2008 and concludes that the vehicle can only be seized if it has been used for reclamation activity. The apprehension alone is not sufficient. The court also considers the evidence presented, including the report of the Village Officer, and finds that there is no proof of actual use for reclamation. Therefore, the proceedings are quashed and the vehicle is ordered to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: The court establishes that the seizure of a vehicle under Section 19 of the Paddy Act, 2008 requires evidence of actual use for reclamation activity. Mere apprehension is not enough. The court also emphasizes the importance of following due process and ensuring that proceedings are legal and sustainable.

Result: The court quashes the proceedings against the petitioner and orders the immediate release of the seized vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The short point that arises in this case is whether a vehicle can be seized or confiscated merely on an apprehension that transportation of red earth in the vehicle is for reclamation of paddy land or wetland. This question arises unless the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called Paddy Act, 2008). It is appropriate to refer Section 19 of Paddy Act, 2008 which reads thus:

“Power of entry and seizure.- (1) Any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank (of Village Officer) or any Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf or any police officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector, with a view to ensure the compliance of the provisions of this Act, may enter and search any premises and seize any vessel, vehicle or any other conveyance (or any clay, sand, earth etc., removed from the paddy land or wetland or any brick, tile made of all or any of them) or machinery used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of this Act, and a report regarding such seizure, whether prosecution proceedings have been initiated or not, shall be given to the (District Collector) having jurisdiction over that area within forty eight hours of such seizure.”

2. As seen from the above provision such vehicle can be seized if the same is deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. That means it must be actually used for reclamation of any paddy land or wetland. If the vehicle has not been used so far for reclamation activity such vehicle cannot be proceeded under S.19 of Paddy Act, 2008.

3. As seen from the Mahazar itself, the vehicle was seized on apprehension that the vehicle was transporting red earth for the purpose of reclamation of the paddy land. The report of the Village Officer produced along with the memo filed by the Learned Government Pleader also shows that the vehicle was seized near to the converted land.

4. As seen from the statutory provision, power under S.19 of Paddy Act, 2008 can be invoked, if the vehicle has been used for the purpose of reclamation of paddy land or wetland.

In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are illegal and unsustainable and without authority. Accordingly the entire proceedings are quashed. The vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner forthwith.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top