Third-party vehicle owners can seek release of seized machinery used in illegal land reclamation under discretionary power in Section 20 KCPLWA.

JUDGMENT

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

" i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Exhibit- P2 and quash the same.

ii) to declare that the action of 4^th respondent seizing the JCB EXCAVATOR on 17.03.2026, belongs to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and not warranted by law.

iii) to issue necessary orders to the respondents 1 & 4 for the release of the JCB EXCAVATOR bearing registration No. KL 04 X 7881 belongs to the petitioner forthwith.

iv) dispense with the English translation of documents in vernacular language.

v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of the JCB excavator bearing registration No.KL-04-X-7881. On 17.03.2026, the said JCB excavator was seized by the 4^th respondent, alleging that the same is used for illegal excavation. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent handed over the petitioner's vehicle to the 1^st respondent along with Ext.P2 report and seizure mahazar for further action. According to the petitioner, he is the only registered owner of the vehicle and has no connection to the landowner.

Hence, this writ petition.

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 JCB excavator.

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 undertak