Confiscation of vehicles under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act requires consideration of ownership and due process before any absolute liability is imposed.

JUDGMENT

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

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Adoor Police to release the excavator bearing Registration No. KL-36-B-4522 to the petitioner, as the continued retention of the vehicle after forwarding reports to the Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector is illegal and without authority of law;

2. Declare that the continued detention of the petitioner’s excavator by the police, despite the admitted forwarding of reports to the competent revenue authorities under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

3. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider and complete any proceedings, if at all contemplated, under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 , within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, without keeping the petitioner’s vehicle in prolonged custody;

4. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of an excavator bearing Registration No. KL-36-B-4522. The above excavator was seized by the Adoor Police on 11.05.2025 alleging that, it was used for levelling soil on land purported to be paddy land. According to the petitioner, he is only the owner of the vehicle, and therefore, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ], the vehicle cannot be confiscated.

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

4. Admittedly the property from which the excavator is seized is included in the data bank. The Government pleader submitted that an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the owner of the land is given. Whatever that may be, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is not the owner of the property. This Court in Venugopalan’s case (supra) held that:

“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 res