The District Collector has discretion in vehicle confiscation under specific sections of the Act, which does not extend to third-party owners.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings leading up to the issuance of Ext. P2 seizure mahazar and quash the same.

ii. declare that the seizure of the JCB/Excavator bearing Registration No KL-29-V-0010 is illegal, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to release the JCB/Excavator bearing Registration No KL-29-V-0010 to the petitioner, forthwith.

iv. Dispense with the filing of the English translations of the documents in vernacular language produced in this Writ Petition (Civil).

v. pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs to the petitioner.

(SIC)

2. The JCB/Excavator of the petitioner bearing Registration No.KL-29/V-0010 has been seized on 22/01/2026, while it was used for levelling a property in possession of a temple, which is shown as “Puramboke” in the BTR is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said property is neither paddy land nor wetland as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act. It is also the case of the petitioner that the JCB/Excavator was not used for any purpose prohibited by law. 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. There is no dispute to the fact that the property from where the excavator is seized is not included in the data bank. Admittedly the petitioner is not the owner of the property from where the excavator is seized. The petitioner is only a third party and he is the owner of the vehicle. 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 veh