The confiscation of a vehicle used for illegal land reclamation under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 involves the discretionary power of the District Collector under Section 20, where the release of such vehicles, particularly to third-party owners, is permissible under stringent conditions.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

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-04-W-4803, 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 4th 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 4th respondents to forward entire report to the 1st 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 HGV-

tipper bearing registration No.KL-04-W-4803. The said vehicle was intercepted and seized by the 4^th respondent on the allegation that it was being used for illegal filling by unloading ordinary earth/red sand in a property comprised in Re-survey No.222/4 situated in Arattupuzha Village, Alappuzha district. According to the petitioner, the seizure itself is illegal and the property where the read earth was filled is not included in the data bank. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The learned Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that the property from where the vehicle was seized is not included in the data bank.

5. If that be the case, the vehicle can be released after imposing appropriate conditions. I make it clear that, if any confiscation proceedings are initiated, that can proceed and the release of the vehicle will be subject to the result of the confiscation proceedings, if any. Moreover, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and not the owner of the property from where the seizure was effected.

6. 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.”

T