Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 15091

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
BEN EBRIN SHAJI – Appellant
Versus
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 1950 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.C.S.MANILAL, SRI.S.NIDHEESH, SHRI.KUNJAPPEASOW RAINGE
For the Respondents: None listed

Vehicle seizures under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act are prohibited if the vehicle belongs to a third party not involved in prohibited activities.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 restricts the seizure of vehicles owned by third parties used for prohibited activities. Facts of the Case: The petitioner challenged the vehicle seizure under the Act.

Findings of Court:
The court found the seizure unlawful for vehicles owned by non-offending third parties.

Issues: The court addressed whether seizure is permissible under the Act for third-party vehicles.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar that seizures do not apply to vehicles owned by third parties.

Result: In view of the afore, this writ petition would stand allowed.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the seizure of the motor vehicle under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (for short ‘Act’).

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Venugopalan C. v.

Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ] has found that no seizure can be effected under the afore provisions with respect to a vehicle owned by a third party, used for the activities prohibited under the Act.

In view of the afore, this writ petition would stand allowed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document