The statutory discretion of a District Collector in vehicle seizures under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, permits certain conditions for release, depending on ownership status.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i) “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to release/return the Excavator seized by the 3rd respondent unconditionally to the petitioner, forthwith;

ii) Declare that the seizure of the excavator owned by the petitioner as per Exhibit P2 mahzar by the 2nd respondent is perse illegal;

iii) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Vernacular documents;

iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case “ [sic]

2. On 05.02.2026, the excavator owned by the petitioner was hired for the purpose of making platforms for the cultivation of bananas and plantains in the property of Smt. Mani w/o Vijayan is the submission. The 3^rd respondent herein came and seized the vehicle stating that the properties are included in the Data Bank and the work done by the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land ad Wetland Act, 2008. Ext.P2 is the seizure mahazar.

Aggrieved by the seizure, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in this writ petition. The counsel relied the judgment of this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ]. The Government Pleader seriously opposed the prayers in the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the property is included in the Data Bank. The vehicle is used for the purpose of reclamation and therefore, the vehicle is to be seized and there is nothing wrong in the seizure.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the Government Pleader. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property, from where the vehicle is seized. The petitioner is the registered owner of the excavator. Whether the petitioner has got any connection with the owner and whether there is any collusion between the petitioner and the owner of the property is a matter to be decided at the appropriate stage.

6. This Court in Venugopalan 's case (supra) 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 Legisl