Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3974
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, Shoba Annamma Eapen, JJ
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
NIXON AUGUSTINE – Respondent
WA 1918/2022
GOVERNMENT PLEADER B UNNIKRISHANAN KAIMAL SR GP, ADV PEEYUS A.KOTTAM
Public officials' directives shield vehicle owners from liability in legal violations when acting in good faith.
Headnote:
Confiscation - Vehicle Seizure - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Sections Relating to Violations - The court ruled that public officials' actions absolve vehicle owners from liability for alleged violations, emphasizing that penalties should not unjustly affect innocent parties acting in good faith.
Fact of the Case:
The State appealed against a single judge's order to release a JCB excavator seized for violating paddy land preservation laws. The vehicle was used under a temporary arrangement set by public officials for depositing excavated earth.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vehicle owner acted on the direction of public officials and was not culpable for the alleged violation. The seizure and confiscation order of the District Collector were deemed illegal and unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the vehicle was liable for confiscation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act due to actions taken at the behest of public officials.
Ratio Decidendi: The liability for actions that lead to legal violations rests with public officials when private individuals are acting in accordance with their directions, not the private parties who may unintentionally violate laws.
Final Decision: The Writ Appeal was dismissed, ordering the release of the vehicle within three days.
J U D G M E N T
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J The State and its officials have come up in this appeal aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge ordering release of JCB 3DX2 bearing registration No.KL-36-6424 which has been seized and confiscated for filling up a paddy land at the behest of PWD officials. As seen from Ext.P4, a paddy land of Chelakkara Juma-Ath Committee's land included in the data bank has been temporally used for depositing red earth. The PWD entered into a contract with a contractor for widening Elanad-Chelakkara road. The red earth excavated while widening the road has been deposited in the above land. There is no other land available in the area for depositing this red earth. On request of PWD officials, a temporary arrangement was made vide Ext.P4 to deposit the red earth in the land belonging to the Chelakkara Juma-Ath Committee. Nobody has any dispute to fact that it was an arrangement at the behest of PWD officials. However, overlooking these aspects, the District Collector ordered confiscation of the excavator, which was used for transporting the read earth.
2. It is now submitted that after depositing the read earth, the same has been removed from the paddy land.
3. The question is, whether vehicle was liable to be confiscated or not for violating of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . It is to be noted that the owner of the vehicle acted on behalf of the public officials. The lack of coordination among the public officials under the Government cannot result in deprivation of the right of another person. It is not a case of willful act on the part of owner of the vehicle or owner of the land to reclaim a land in contraventions of the . When a owner of the land or owner of the vehicle is acting on behalf of the public officials, which results in violation of the law, then the ultimate responsibility has to be fastened on the public officials and not on the private persons who are acting on behalf of the public officials. The JCB owner has no occasion to verify the details of the land except to act on the directions of the public officials. The District Collector overlooked this aspect while ordering confiscation. A temporary act of the public officials while discharging of public duty cannot be visited with a penalty to another private person of this nature. The order passed by the District Collector is illegal and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgment. Since, the vehicle in question has been seized and confiscated in the year 2020, the owner has been deprived of the legitimate use of the vehicle. This writ appeal ought to have been dismissed with heavy cost, taking note of the loss suffered by the owner of the vehicle. Anyway, taking note of the fervent plea made by the learned Government Pleader, we are desisting from doing so. However, we order release of the vehicle within three days and report before this Court on 31.01.2023.
This Writ Appeal is dismissed as above.
Post on 31.01.2023 to report compliance.
