The discretion of the District Collector under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act permits conditional release of seized vehicles not owned by the perpetrator.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to release/return the goods carriage/lorry bearing registration No.KL-BT-5198 seized by the 3^rd respondent unconditionally to the petitioner, forthwith;

ii) Declare that the seizure of the vehicle owned by the petitioner as per Exhibit P1 mahzar by the 3^rd 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. The petitioner is the registered owner of a goods carriage/lorry bearing registration No.KL-BT-5198. The vehicle was hired by the owners of a steel factory by the name ‘Primo Flex’, situated at Feroke in Kozhikkode District, on 06.03.2026 is the submission. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was toppled, and the 3^rd respondent came and seized the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was used for carrying soil to be dumped in a paddy land. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property, and he is only the registered owner of the vehicle. This Court in Venugoplan C v. The Tahsildar (Land Records)

[2026 (1) KHC 1] , considered this point and observed like this:

“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 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 of the land except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The prohibition applies to the owner, occupier, or person in custody of such land. Similar provisions have been made under Section 11 of the Act on the reclamation of wetland. But in , there is a total prohibition against reclamati