Third-party vehicle owners not land owners eligible for release on conditions under discretionary Section 20 of Paddy Land Act.

JUDGMENT

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

" i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P-2 mahazar and its all further proceedings.

ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release vehicle belongs to petitioner bearing registration No.KL-04AB2324, forthwith.

iii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ Direction or Order, declaring that the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle effected by the 3rd respondent on the basis of the Exhibit P-2 will not come under the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

iv. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondents to forward entire report to the 1^st respondent with respect to the seizure of the petitioner vehicle on the basis of the Exhibit P-2 mahazar forthwith, if it is not already forwarded and direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner’s vehicle on interim custody.

v. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

vi. Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing No.KL-04-AB-2324. The said vehicle was seized on 23.03.2026 by the 3^rd respondent, alleging that the same is used for illegal filling of a property, which is shown as 'nilam'.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property from where the vehicle was seized. The petitioner is the registered owner of the tipper lorry.

5. This Court inVenugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [ 2026 (1) KHC 1 ], 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 Collectormay, 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