Under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the District Collector has discretion to release a third-party vehicle involved in land conversion offenses, subject to conditions, as the strict liability principle allows third parties to seek release based on their lack of involvement in the illegal act.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the 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-44-1549, forthwith.

iii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ Direction or Order, declaring that the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle affected by the 2nd 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 1st respondent to finalize the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P-2 mahazar within a time limit after hearing the petitioner.

v. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to release the petitioner’s vehicle on interim custody.

vi. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

And vii. Issue such other relief this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper vehicle bearing registration No. KL-44-1549. On

28.04.2026 at about 1:35 am, the 2^nd respondent seized the petitioner's vehicle alleging that the vehicle is used for illegal mining of red earth from the nancha property belongs to the 4^th respondent situated in Cheramangalam Village in Aluthur Taluk, as per Ext.P2. The petitioner submitted that, he is not the owner of the land from where the vehicle was seized allegedly. The 4^th respondent is the owner of the land. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said land is a ‘Paramba’ and ‘dry land’, and it was converted as ‘paramba’ long back. Hence, the prayer is to release the vehicle.

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

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the property, from where the vehicle was seized. The petitioner is only the registered owner of the vehicle. Whether the petitioner in connivance to the 4^th respondent committed illegal mining is a point to be decided at the appropriate stage. But, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records) [2026 (1) KHC 1], the vehicle can be released. This Court 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 powe