The District Collector has discretion under Section 20 of the Act to release seized vehicles, with strict liability for third parties implicated in unlawful reclamation.

JUDGMENT

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

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to release the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 57 F 3359 to the petitioner forthwith, so as to secure the ends of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order directing the 1st respondent to pass orders under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 based on the Exhibit P3 report of the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible and within a time frame fixed by this Honourable Court, so as to secure the ends of justice.

(iii) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the English translation of Malayalam documents produced in the writ petition, so as to secure the ends of justice.

And (iv) Such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of the Goods Carriage Vehicle bearing registration No.KL 57 F 3359. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was hired by one Sebastian Marangattil and others to transport building waste to the road leading to the plots of him and other adjacent land owners to level the road. The vehicle is seized as per Ext.P3 seizure mahasar alleging that the petitioner tried to reclaim the paddy land. Aggrieved by the seizure, this writ petition is filed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property. The definite case of the petitioner is that the property from where the vehicle is seized is converted about 20 years back, even though it is included in the data bank.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of 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 confiscation. The Legislature's intention in using the word “may” would indicate that not every seizure of an article or vehicle must result in confiscation. We need to look into the word “may” and how we interpret the meaning of “may” is the question involved in this issue.

8. A paddy land or wetland, as