The discretions exercised by the District Collector in vehicle confiscation cases must align with statutory provisions, highlighting the difference between ownership and liability under the law.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-40-C-6516 to the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) a declaration that the seizure of the vehicle owned by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law;

(iii) to dispense with the requirement of filing translations of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in this Writ Petition; and (iv) to issue any other writ, order, or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the owner of a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-40-C-6516. On 06.01.2026, the said vehicle was seized by the 4^th respondent on the apprehension that it was allegedly used for transporting sand/red earth for reclaiming paddy land in Re-survey No. 140/5 of Kombanad Village, Ernakulam District. According to the petitioner, the property is not included in the data bank as ‘nilam’ and therefore the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 are not attracted. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the property from where the vehicle is seized is not included in the data bank.

5. The Government Pleader submitted that, she has doubt whether the property is included in the data bank or not.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and not the owner of the property. This Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records), Mananthavady, Wayanad [2025 KHC OnLine 2172] considered a similar matter in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“6. We find that the answers to the pointed questions tend to overlap, making it appropriate for us to consider and answer all the questions together.

7. To understand the issues involved, first, we must look at the statutory provision. The statutory provision under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”)

reads thus:

“20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle, etc. (1) After obtaining a report regarding seizure under Section 12 or Section 19, the District Collector may, if he thinks fit, order confiscation of the object seized: (emphasis supplied) Provided that the owner or the person in custody of the same, shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a sum equal to one and a half times the value of the seized articles, as may be determined by the District Collector. Provided further that the District Collector may take any action, in such manner as may be prescribed, to dispose the seized clay, sand, earth, brick, tile etc. and cause to remit the sums collected to the Fund.

(2) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be made by the District Collector unless the owner thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(3) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2), if the provisions have been substantially complied with.”

The above statutory provision alludes to the power of the District Collector. It provides discretion to the District Collector upon seizure of a vehicle, allowing them to either confiscate it or release it without confiscation. The Legislature's intention in using the word “may” would indicate that not every seizure of an article or vehicle must resu