Confiscation orders cannot apply to properties converted before the enactment of a conservation statute, if not included in the established data bank.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of October,2022 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exhibit P2 confiscation order passed by the District Collector, Kottyam, as per the powers conferred under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 and Exhibit P3 order passed by the District Court, Kottyam in CMA No.9/2017, by which Exhibit P2 order passed by the District Collector was affirmed.

2. The basic contention advanced by the petitioner is that his lorry bearing registration No.KL-08-AQ-806, allegedly used for conversion of a paddy field, is not included in the data bank constituted as per the provisions of the Act, 2008. It is further pointed out that the paddy field was converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008. Therefore, when the paddy field is not included in the data bank and was converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008, no confiscation proceedings can be initiated for developing the said converted paddy field. In fact, the said issue was considered by this Court in Eldhose Mani v. the Sub Inspector of Police in W.P.© No.11664/2018 dated 24th August, 2022 and held that if the paddy field in question has already been converted prior to the introduction of Act, 2008, the confiscation proceedings cannot be initiated against a person for developing the already converted property. The operative portion of the said judgement reads thus:

“ 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. 8/2017 are set aside. In view of the quashing of the proceedings of the District Collector as well as the Additional District Court, Kottayam, the District Collector, Kottayam is directed to release the vehicle in question to the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”

3. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition, since the property of the petitioner was converted prior to the introduction of Act 2008. Needless to say, all consequential action shall be taken in order to terminate the confiscation proceedings against the petitioner, at the earliest, by the District Collector. On production of a certified copy of this judgement, the District Collector shall take appropriate action to release the vehicle, at the earliest. I also place on record that the findings and observation made above are only applicable to the confiscation proceedings.