Confiscation of vehicles under the 2008 Act must consider third-party ownership and contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT

The prayer in this Original Petition is to set aside Exts.P12 and P14. Ext.P12 is an order issued by the District Collector, Kottayam, whereby the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was confiscated and he was directed to remit a sum of Rs.2,62,500/- for getting release of the vehicle. The allegation was violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2008 Act’). Ext.P14 is the order passed by the District Court, Kottayam in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.26 of 2025 filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P12 order. The District Court confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the land where the alleged conversion took place. The petitioner is a person whose vehicle was hired by the owner of the property.

2. A Division Bench of this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [2026 (1)

KHC 1] considered the provisions of the 2008 Act and held that while applying the principles of fairness in interpreting a statute that accords some latitude for discretion, confiscation cannot be justified in cases where a third-party vehicle owner has acted on the basis of a hiring contract with the owner of the property. Applying the principles laid down in the said judgment, the petitioner cannot be treated as a person who has violated the provisions of the 2008 Act and the discretion should be exercised in his favour. The District Collector as well as the District Court did not consider the issue from the above point of view. The judgment of this Court referred above was rendered after the judgment pronounced by the District Judge.

In view of the binding decision of this Court, this Original Petition is allowed. Exts.P12 and P14 are set aside. Consequential action shall be taken by the respondents within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.