The Court confirms the District Collector's discretion in vehicle confiscation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, emphasizing strict liability for third-party involvement.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction calling for all the records leading to Exhibit P2 mahazar and Exhibit P3 report issued by the 2nd Respondent and quash the original of the same as illegal and opposed to law.

ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction commanding the 2nd respondent to unconditionally release Petitioner’s JCB excavator bearing Reg.No.KL13 H5323.

iii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction declaring that the seizure of the petitioners JCB excavator bearing Reg.No.KL- 13-H-5323 as per Exhibit P2 Mahazar is patently illegal and that initiation of proceedings against the Petitioner’s aforesaid vehicle under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is patently illegal.

iv) Dispense with production of English translation of documents in vernacular languages v) Pass such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the aggrieved by the seizure of his JCB excavator bearing registration No.KL-13-H-5323 by the 2^nd respondent, alleging that the same is used for reclamation of the property.

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

4. According to the petitioner, even if the averments in Ext.P2 seizure mahazar is accepted, the property from where the vehicle is seized is not included in the data bank. According to the petitioner, actually the vehicle was seized from a road.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, a perusal of the survey number mentioned in Ext.P4, the property is not included in the data bank. But, the Government Pleader submitted that, whether there is any sub division is there to the survey number is not clear.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property, from where the vehicle is seized. The petitioner is the registered owner of the JCB excavator.

7. This Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [2026 (1) KHC 1] . It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“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 c