The confiscation of a third-party vehicle under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act 2008 is governed by the strict liability principle, allowing for the conditional release of the vehicle pending the outcome of confiscation proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any such other appropriate writ, direction or orders commanding the respondents to release the excavator /JCB bearing registration No. KL-56-S- 0449, seized by the 2nd respondent, unconditionally to the petitioner, forthwith.

ii. Declare that the seizure of the excavator/JCB owned by the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 mahazar by the 2nd respondent is per se illegal.

iii. Dispense with the filing of translation of all vernacular documents.

iv. Grant such other reliefs to deem fit at the facts and circumstances of the case.

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a JCB/Excavator bearing registration No.KL-56-S-0449, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent. According to the 2^nd respondent, the property is included in the data bank as ‘nanja’ and there is violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008.

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

4. Assuming for argument’s sake that the property is included in the data bank, it is a fact that the petitioner is only the owner of the excavator. He is not the owner of the property. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is his means of livelihood.

5. This Court in Venugopalan 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 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 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