The discretion of the District Collector in vehicle seizures under the Kerala Conservation Act allows for conditions in the release of third-party owned vehicles used in contravention of the law.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Exhibit- P2 and quash the same.

ii. to declare that the action of 4th respondent seizing the JCB EXCAVATOR on 13.12.2025, belongs to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and not warranted by law.

iii. to issue necessary orders to the respondents 1 & 4 for the release of the JCB EXCAVATOR bearing registration No. KL 17 E 6321 belongs to the petitioner forthwith iv. And in the alternative, direct the 4th respondent to send the report of seizure of petitioner’s JCB EXCAVATOR bearing registration No. KL 17 E 6321, before the Jurisdictional Magistrate (Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara) immediately to apply for interim custody of the same; in terms of 503 of BNSS 2023.

v. dispense with the English translation of documents in vernacular language.

vi. to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is the power of attorney holder of the registered owner of a JCB/Excavator bearing registration No.KL-17/E-6321. On 04.03.2012 the JCB/Excavator was seized by the 4^th respondent alleging that the same is used in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act. According to the petitioner, the property is not included in the data bank. Hence this writ petition.

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

4. 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.

5. This Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ], held as follows:

“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 meani