Discretion under Section 20 of Kerala Paddy Land Act for third-party vehicle owners to avoid confiscation based on innocence.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"a) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-3, b) Declare that the seizure of the petitioner’s machinery from the 1^st respondent’s property as per Exhibit P-3 is illegal and unsustainable, c) A writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P-6 proceedings of the 3^rd respondent.

d) issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case, and e) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner’s hydraulic excavator, used by the 1^st respondent for leveling his property was taken into custody by the 2^nd respondent Sub Inspector alleging that the machine was used to convert paddy land, is the submission. According to the petitioner, the Village Officer, Kunjithanni submitted a report before the Sub Collector, Devikulam stating that the property is shown as paddy land in the Data Bank and that there is no BTR in respect of the land. The 1^st respondent’s land, assigned to his predecessors in the year 1961 is not a paddy land, is the further submission. Now, as per Ext.P6 order, the vehicle is confiscated invoking the powers under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short ‘Act 2008’) and a fine is also imposed. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

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

4. Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this Writ Petition. The counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court inVenugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records), Mananthavady, Wayanad [ 2025 KHC OnLine 2172 ]. The counsel submitted that the officer concerned, while issuing Ext.P6 order, has not decided whether there is any collusion between the petitioner and the land owner. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, Ext.P6 is to be set aside, is the submission.

5. The learned Government Pleader seriously opposed the contentions of the petitioner. The Government Pleader submitted that, as per Section 21 of the Act 2008, the petitioner has got a remedy and this Court may not interfere with the same. If this Court started to interfere with the same, that will be treated as a precedent. Therefore, the Government Pleader submitted that, when there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court may not interfere with the same.

6. It is true that the petitioner has an alternative remedy as per Section 21 of the Act, 2008. But, subsequent to the impugned order, this Court in Venugopalan’s case (supra), considered these type of cases in detail. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder:

“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 e