Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27300
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, – Appellant
Versus
M/S. AMITY ROCK PRODUCTS, – Respondent
WA/1421/2021
SRI. PHILIP J VETTICKATTU FOR RESPONDENT
Seizure of vehicles under the Kerala Act requires clear evidence of their actual use for illegal reclamation activities, not just suspicion.
Headnote:
Seizure - Vehicle Confiscation - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 19 - The court highlighted that actual use of the vehicle for prohibited activity is essential for seizure under Section 19, rejecting actions based solely on suspicion without clear proof.
Fact of the Case:
A vehicle was seized on the suspicion of being used to transport materials for the reclamation of paddy land without concrete evidence of such usage, leading to a legal challenge by the vehicle's owner against the proceedings initiated under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the initial judgment incorrectly held that the mere apprehension regarding the vehicle's use was sufficient for seizure. The actual use of the vehicle must be established under the provisions of the Act.
Issues: Whether the seizure of the vehicle was lawful given the lack of evidence proving it was used for reclamation activities as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
Ratio Decidendi: The confiscation of a vehicle under Section 19 necessitates actual evidence of its use for activities contravening the Act, rather than reliance on mere suspicion or apprehension.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, overturning the single judge's decision.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
This appeal is preferred by the respondents in W.P. (C)No.23829 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 08.01.2021 whereby the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short ‘Act 2008’) was quashed basically holding that as per the statutory provision, the powers can be invoked only if the vehicle has been used for the purpose of reclamation of paddy land or wetland. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred. The brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:
2. Writ petitioner/respondent is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-28/B-7659. The 2nd appellant has prepared Exhibit P2 mahazar stating that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was used in violation of the provisions of the Act 2008 and filled up a portion of a paddy land, situated within the jurisdiction of the village in question. A hearing notice dated 21.10.2020 was issued from the ofÏce of the first appellant ie. the District Collector, Kottayam in respect of the allegations made in the mahazar prepared by the Village OfÏcer. It was thus challenging the legality and correctness of the proceedings initiated by the appellants, the writ petition was preferred.
3. The learned single Judge, after hearing the parties, was of the opinion that a vehicle cannot be seized or confiscated merely on an apprehension that the transportation of red earth in the vehicle is for reclamation of paddy land or wetland. It was also observed that going by the provisions of section 19, a vehicle can be seized only if the same is deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of Act 2008. Therefore, according to the learned single Judge, it means the vehicle must have been actually used for reclamation of any paddy land or wetland, but if the vehicle has not been used so far for reclamation activity, such vehicle cannot be proceeded under section 19 of Act 2008. It is also observed in the judgment that as per the mahazar, the vehicle was seized on the apprehension that the vehicle was transporting red earth for the purpose of reclamation of paddy land. It was further found that the report of the Village OfÏcer, produced along with a memo by the Government Pleader, also shows that the vehicle was seized near to the converted land.
4. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Tekchand appeared for the appellants and the learned counsel Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu appeared for the respondent/writ petitioner and perused the pleadings and the materials on record.
5. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the judgment of the learned single Judge is contrary to the facts and against the provisions of Act 2008; learned single Judge was not right in finding that the vehicle was not actually used to fill up the paddy land and further submitted that the property comprised in Sy.No.581/Part of Panachikkad Village is included as paddy field in the data bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee. It was also contended that the owner of the paddy land has filled up the paddy land for the construction of a road, which is quite discernible from Annexure-I photographs produced along with the writ appeal. It was also submitted that the statutory authority under the Act 2008, namely the District Collector, has proceeded against the owner of the paddy field as per section 11 of Act 2008 and has passed Annexure-II order dated 23.12.2020 directing to restore the paddy field to its original position by invoking the powers conferred apparently under Section 18 of Act 2008 and in the said order it is clearly specified that vehicle No.KL- 28/B-7659 belonging to the writ petitioner was found unloading soil
