The discretionary power under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, allows for the release of a seized vehicle on stringent conditions, acknowledging that vehicle owners may not be held to the same absolute liability as land owners.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by calling for the records relating to the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration KL-49-A 6913 by the second respondent as per Exhibit P2 mahazar and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to release the petitioner’s vehicle bearing Registration KL-49-A 6913 forthwith to the petitioner.

3. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to consider and finalize the adjudication proceedings under Section 21 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 within a time limit as may be fixed by this Honourable Court.

4. Declare that the continued detention of the petitioner’s vehicle without any material showing violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is illegal and unsustainable.

5. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Exempt the production of translated copies of vernacular documents of the subject matter.

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-49-A-6913, which was seized by the 2^nd respondent alleging that the same was used for illegal reclamation of paddy land under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet land Act, 2008. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed seeking release of the vehicle.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and not the owner of the property. 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 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 t