The provision requires the involvement of authorized officers for vehicle seizures under the Act, and claimants have the right to pursue statutory remedies.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The 1st petitioner, who is owner of an Excavator/JCB, and the 2nd petitioner, who is owner of a Mini Lorry, have approached this Court seeking to declare that seizure of their vehicles as per Ext.P1 Mahazar is absolutely arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners seek to command the respondents to release their vehicles unconditionally forthwith.

2. The 1st petitioner is the registered owner of an Excavator/JCB with registration No.KL-43E-4222. The 2nd petitioner is the owner of a Mini Lorry bearing No.KL-55H- 9101. A landowner hired the vehicles of the petitioners for facilitating construction of a Villa. The 2nd respondent- Tahsildar seized the vehicles of the petitioners on 18.09.2022 alleging that the land in Re-survey No.84/4B of Vengeri Village is included in the Data Bank and the vehicles were used for converting the nature of the land.

3. The petitioners state that the provisions under of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 cannot be applied against the petitioners as the land has been converted decades ago. The land is situated in the midst of a Villa Project. There are about 80 residential houses constructed around the property in question.

4. The petitioners state that the seizure of the vehicles owned by the petitioners is illegal as the vehicles were not used for conversion or reclamation of any paddy land or wetland. The petitioners urge that the power to seize vehicles is given under Section 19 officers not below the rank of Village Officers in the Revenue Department or any other officers authorised by the Government in this behalf. According to the petitioners, it is some staff of the Taluk Office who seized the vehicles of the petitioners. The seizure is therefore illegal.

5. The petitioners further contended that there was no conversion or reclamation of land using their vehicles, falling under the definition of Section 2(iii) of the Act, 2008.

The vehicles seized are the sole livelihood of the petitioners.

6. Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the land where the petitioners have deployed their vehicles, is a notified paddy land. The vehicles were used for conversion of the land. The vehicles of the petitioners were instrumental in an attempt to convert paddy land without the authority of law.

7. The Senior Government Pleader further submitted that there are no trees or buildings in the property in question. A piece of paddy land was admittedly sought to be converted for commercial exploitation. Therefore, the vehicles of the petitioners are liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

9. There is no dispute over the fact that the land where the vehicles of the petitioners were deployed is described as paddy land in Revenue records. The land is also included in the Data Bank prepared under Section 5(4) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . The petitioners would submit that the land in question is in Re-survey No.84/4B and the Data Bank does not include this survey number. The Senior Government Pleader would, however, submit that the land in Survey No.84 has been included in the Data Bank and the subdivision of petitioners' land as 84/4B can be a subsequent event. These are all matters for the competent authorities to decide.

10. The case of the petitioners is that the land where the vehicles of the petitioners were deployed is in the midst of a Villa Project and there are large number of residential buildings around the land in question. The land is obviously a dry land. Ext.P2 series of photographs would establish the same. Therefore, seizure of the vehicles deployed in the said property, c