Statutory discretion of the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act in seizure and confiscation matters.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding the respondents to release the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-40-Q-1017 to the petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

(ii) a declaration that the seizure of the vehicle owned by the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law;

(iii) to dispense with the requirement of filing translations of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in this Writ Petition;

and (iv) to issue any other writ, order, or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case” (SIC)

2. The petitioner herein is the owner and operator of an Excavator bearing registration No.KL-40-Q-1017. On 06.01.2026, the 4^th respondent police seized the Excavator stating that the petitioner violated the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . Aggrieved by the seizure of the vehicle, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The Government Pleader made available the seizure mahazar by which the vehicle is seized. In the seizure mahazar, the survey number of the property from where the vehicle is seized is not mentioned. Admittedly, the petitioner is only the owner of the Excavator and he is not the owner of the property from where the seizure is effected. In the light of the same, the principle laid down by this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ], is applicable in this case. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“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 the case may be, if it is included in the data bank, it is declared by the law that it cannot be converted or reclaimed. The owner of such land is legally barred under Section 3 of the Act from undertaking an activity for reclamation or conversion