Procedural irregularities and violations of natural justice necessitate judicial intervention in administrative seizure actions.

JUDGMENT :

C.S.Dias, J.

The petitioner is the owner of an excavator bearing No. KL-78-0404. The petitioner rents out his excavator for earth moving works. On 29.01.2025, an owner of a land in Mananthavady Village took the excavator on rent to dig a wastewater pit in his property. The landowner told the petitioner’s driver that his property is a dry land. On the next day, the petitioner’s driver was directed by the 2^nd respondent to take the excavator to the 1^st respondent’s office. The 1^st respondent told the petitioner’s driver that the excavator was seized. The excavator was seized without any inspection, and based on false information. Even though the petitioner requested the respondents 1 to 3 to release the excavator, the same was to no avail. The petitioner has received information through his friend under the Right Information Act, which substantiates that though the excavator was seized on 29.01.2025, the 2^nd respondent sent the mahazar and sketch only the next day. The earth work was carried out in the property comprised in Survey No.207/2 pt, which lies contiguously with Survey No.209pts. There is no demarcation of boundaries between the two properties. Only some area of the properties is included in the data bank, which is evidenced from Exts.P4 and P5 communications. On 05.03.2025, the petitioner learnt from his friend that proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 ('Act' in short). The petitioner was directed to appear before the 3^rd respondent on the following day. Although the petitioner did not receive the notice, he appeared before the 3^rd respondent on 06.03.2025. He was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. He was told that since the information regarding the classification of the land was awaited, a fresh notice would be issued to him for hearing, and thereafter, the proceedings would be finalised. Immediately, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 3^rd respondent. As there was inordinate delay in finalising the proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.11019/2025 before this Court, to direct the respondents to give him the interim custody of the excavator. He also filed W.P. (C)No.13069/2025, to declare the seizure of the excavator was illegal. When the writ petitions were taken up for consideration, it was submitted that Ext.P11 confiscation order has been passed. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.32,25,000/- to get his vehicle released. In fact, Ext.P12 report of the Agricultural Officer clearly reveals that the property in Survey No. 207/2 is a converted land. There is no mention regarding the remaining extent of land. In light of Ext.P11 order, this Court closed the writ petitions, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to workout his remedies available under law. The petitioner is the sole bread winner of his family. He purchased the excavator by availing financial assistance. The vehicle is exposed to the vagaries of the nature. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P15 petition to rehear the matter in detail. Ext.P11 order is illegal and arbitrary, and may be quashed. The 3^rd respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P15 representation in accordance with law.

2. In the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent it is stated that, on getting information that the excavator was being used to illegally convert 2.7192 hectares of paddy land comprised in Survey No.207/2 in Mananthavady Village, which is classified as ‘Nilam’ in the data bank, the excavator was seized as per the provisions of the Act. Except for one landowner all the others were present at the time of hearing on 06.03.2025. The absentee landowner and the Agricultural Officer were heard on 26.03.2025. The Agricultural Officer has reported that 2