JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector, Kottayam dated 30.11.2016 under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘the Act, 2008’) and Ext.P3 order passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Kottayam in C.M.A. No. 8/2017 whereby the order passed by the District Collector was affirmed. As per Ext.P2 order, the District Collector after conducting the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2008 confiscated a tipper lorry belonging to the petitioner bearing No. KL-21-A-6578 and that an option given to the petitioner to pay the value of the vehicle as such provided in Ext.P2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached the Additional District Court, Kottayam by filing C.M.A. No. 8/2017 and as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 05.02.2018, the District Judge confirmed Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector. According to the petitioner, the conversion of the property was done in the property situated in Survey No. 265/7 of Mulakkulam Village. The case projected by the petitioner is that the said property is not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Act, 2008 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, at that point of time, the data bank was prepared showing the property in question as a converted paddy field. Whatever that be, today when the matter is taken up, the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Joby Joseph submitted that the property in question is not included in the data bank. In my considered opinion, when originally the property was included in the data bank as a converted paddy field which thus means, the provisions contained under Section 20 of the Act, 2008 may not come into play since it is an already converted paddy field when the Act, 2008 came into force. Section 20 of the Act, 2008 reads thus:

“20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle:

(1) After obtaining a report regarding seizure under section 12 or section 19, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, order confiscation of the object seized:

Provided that the owner or the person in custody of the same, shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a sum equal to one and a half times the value of the seized articles, as may be determined by the District Collector.

(2) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be made by the District Collector unless the owner thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(3) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2), if the provisions have been substantially complied with.”

2. On an analysis of the said provision and Section 5 of the Act, 2008 so also Rules 4 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 also makes it clear that the Local Level Monitoring Committee was conferred with power to prepare a data bank showing the details of the paddy field cultivated and uncultivated land and the properties which are cultivable in nature. Therefore, if the property was originally included as a converted paddy field in the data bank prepared that itself shows that an action contemplated under Section 20 of the Act, 2008 cannot be initiated against the petitioner.

3. Now the learned Government Pleader has also produced the copy of a data bank which also shows that the property in question situated in Survey No. 265/7 of Mulakkulam Village is not included in the data bank. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that interference is required to Ext. P2 order passed by the District Collector and Ext. P3 order passed by the Additional District Court in an appeal.

4. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, Ext.P2 order passed by the District Collector dated 30.11.2016 and the order passed by the Additional District Court, Kottayam in C.M.A. No.