Liability for confiscation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act requires knowledge of the unlawful act by the party involved.

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2020 in CMA No.4 of 2018 of the Additional District Judge-III, Manjeri. The petitioner’s excavator loader (JCB) bearing Registration No.KL-17/G- 3337 was seized by the 1^st respondent on a mahazar while digging a well in the property of the 7^th respondent for collecting drinking water. The allegation against the petitioner is that there was violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short, ‘the 2008 Act’). The request made by the 7^th respondent, who hired the petitioner’s vehicle, for releasing the vehicle was turned down and the vehicle was kept in the courtyard of the 2^nd respondent exposed to sun and rain. The 6th respondent ordered confiscation of the vehicle. By judgment dated 02.07.2020, the court below dismissed the statutory appeal filed by the revision petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was used only for digging a well and not for any reclamation or conversion of wet land or paddy land. It is also stated that the 7^th respondent being the owner of the property, had hired the vehicle, and the activity was carried out at the instance of the property owner. The judgment is dated 02.07.2020. The fact that the purpose was digging a well is found by the court below. However, the court took the view that there was no irregularity in the order passed by the District Collector since it is in accordance with the provisions of the

2008 Act.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Venugopalan v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KLT 21 ], wherein this Court had considered the power of confiscation under Section 20(1) of the 2008 Act and held that the statutory provision cannot be construed to exculpate a third party who had no knowledge, but was intended to absolve him from the liability of the act committed and to exonerate him from facing the ultimate consequence of the confiscation. It was also held that in the absence of any attribution of knowledge to the third party contractor, the District Collector ought to have exercised the discretion in favour of the contractor to absolve him from the ultimate penalty being imposed on him.

4. In the case on hand, a reading of the judgment would show that the petitioner who is a third party contractor did not have any knowledge of the offence and had only acted on the basis of the hiring of the vehicle by the 7^th respondent. The principles laid down in the Division Bench judgment squarely applies to the case.

In the above circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment dated 02.07.2020 in CMA No.4 of 2018 of the Additional District Judge-III, Manjeri is set aside. The appeal stands allowed and the order of confiscation is also set aside. The respondents shall release the vehicle to the petitioner immediately.

Sd/-