Sudheer Sukumaran vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 14238 Ker

WA NO. 842 OF 2021                   1



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                 &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
      THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WA NO. 842 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10509/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
                            ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C):

          SUDHEER SUKUMARAN
          AGED 53 YEARS
          RESIDING AT ASWATHY, NRA-E-39, CHERUVAIKAL, SREEKARIAM
          P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695017.
          BY ADVS.
          S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF
          M.H.ASIF ALI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C):

1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
          KADAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2         DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
          KADAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695043.
3         VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ATTIPRA VILLAGE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695032
4         SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS
          DEPARTMENT, SOUTH CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING
          ENGINEER, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033
5         EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS
          DEPARTMENT,SOUTH CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING
          ENGINEER, PMG JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033
6         STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL
          SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

          SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR
 WA NO. 842 OF 2021                         2



             RESPONDENTS
      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:



                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of July 2021

SHAJI P.CHALY,J

This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.10509/2021,

challenging the judgment dated 9.6.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has

disposed of the writ petition directing the District Collector to finalise the

proceedings under section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and

Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter called, "Act, 2008") leading to the seizure of the

vehicles allegedly belonging to the appellant, as contemplated under the Act,

2008 and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of the

judgment. It was also directed to advert to the contention raised in Exhibits P5,

P8 and P9 representations submitted by the appellant while taking a decision in

the matter, as directed. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the

judgment, the appeal is preferred.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;

appellant claims to be the owner in possession of an extent of 84.50 Ares of land

situated in Sy.Nos.522/12, 22; 529/19,9; 522/8, 9; 522/7, 5, 522/16, 4 & 522/6,

33 of Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, evident from Exhibit P1 tax

receipt. Appellant is aggrieved by seizure of vehicles and other materials by the

Deputy Collector (LR), Collectorate, Thiruvananthapuram and Village Officer,

Attipra Village, Thiruvananthapuram, allegedly for violation of the provisions of

the Act, 2008. The case projected by the appellant was that he carried out works

allotted to him as per Exhibit P2 selection notice issued by the 4 th respondent ie

the Superintending Engineer, Public works Department (PWD),

Thiruvananthapuram, however on the basis of an anonymous complaint on

4.1.2021, respondents 2 & 3 seized the vehicles belonging to the appellant

bearing registration Nos. KL-21C-9424, KL-21K-6410, KL 22M-6028, KL-04AB-

5221 & KL 22 N-9862. The essence of the allegation is that the seizure is illegal

and unwarranted and flouting the provisions of Section 19 of Act, 2008. It is the

contention of the appellant that sub-section (2) of section 19 of Act, 2008 clearly

specifies that in the matter of search and seizure, as per the powers conferred

under section 19, it is subject to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973. Therefore, according to the appellant, respondents 2 &3 have seized the

vehicles without the presence of any witness and without preparing a seizure

mahazar as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973.

3. Anyhow it is an admitted fact that aggrieved by the seizure, appellant has

submitted Exhibit P5 representation before the District Collector,

Thiruvananthapuram, who is the statutory authority in contemplation of section

19 of the Act, 2008. Thereafter, appellant has also submitted Exhibits P8 & P9

representations before the District Collector as well as Deputy Collector for release

of the vehicles and materials. But according to the appellant, he could not achieve

any fruitful result, which persuaded the appellant to approach this court by filing

the writ petition.

4. We have heard, learned counsel for the appellant Sri.S.Muhammed

Haneef and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Aravinda Kumar Babu and

perused the pleadings and materials on record.

5. The primary contention advanced by the appellant is revolving around

section 19 of Act, 2008, which reads thus:

"19.Power of entry and seizure - (1) Any officer of the Revenue Department

not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer or any Officer authorised by

the Government in this behalf or any police officer not below the rank of a Sub

Inspector, with a view to ensure the compliance of the provisions of this Act,

may enter and search any premises and seize any vessel, vehicle or any other

conveyance or machinery used or deemed to have been used for any activity in

contravention of the provisions of this Act, and a report regarding such seizure,

whether prosecution proceedings have been initiated or not, shall be given to

the Collector having jurisdiction over that area within forty eight hours of such

seizure.

(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) relating to search and seizure shall, so far as may be, apply to se arch and seizure under this Act. "

6. As we have pointed out above, the sum and substance of the contention is

that the requirement of a search and seizure as is contemplated under the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not followed by the officers. In fact on a reading of

section 19 of Act, 2008, it is quite clear and evident that any officer of the

Revenue Department not below the rank of Village Officer or any Officer

authorised by the Government in this behalf or any police officer not below the

rank of a Sub-Inspector, is entitled to enter and search any premises with a view

to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2008, and seize any vessel,

vehicle or any other conveyance or any clay, sand, earth etc., removed from the

paddy land or wetland or any brick, tile made of all or any of them or machinery

used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the

provisions of the Act, 2008.

7. The only imperative condition thereunder is that the officer conducting

search and seizure shall file a report regarding any seizure and whether

prosecution proceedings have been initiated or not, to the District Collector having

jurisdiction over that area, within 48 hours of such seizure. The basic contention is

that the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 19 of Act, 2008 regarding

compliance of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not

followed in the matter of search and seizure.

8. In our considered opinion, section 20 of Act, 2008 takes care of every

situation that has taken place under section 19 of Act, 2008. The said provision

reads thus:

"20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle, etc - (1) After obtaining a report regarding seizure under section 12 or section 19, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, order confiscation of the object seized:

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. "

9. Therefore, now analysing the contentions put forth by the appellant in

regard to the illegality of the proceeding under section 19 of the Act, 2008, we

are of the view that it is a subject matter to be considered by the District Collector

under section 20 of the Act, 2008 wherein a clear cut procedure is prescribed to

deal with the seizure proceedings. It is also clear that any order passed by the

authority under section 20 of Act, 2008 is an appealable order to the District

Court having jurisdiction, as per section 21 of Act, 2008. Thus it can be seen that

the act 2008 is a comprehensive legislation capable of tackling the situations

arising there from.

10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, whatever illegality is remaining in

the proceedings under section 19 of Act, 2008, as contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, is a subject matter, which can be adjudicated by the

District Collector under section 20 of the Act, 2008. It may be true, a writ court

may be justified in entertaining a writ petition and considering any aspect which

may have the consequences of patent illegality or arbitrariness if discernible from

the records produced, irrespective of the alternative remedy available. But We

could not locate any such patent illegality or arbitrariness in the matter at hand in

view of the statutory provisions discussed above. Moreover the facts and figures

put forth by the appellant would clearly indicate that the issues can only be sorted

by a fact finding body and which is the only feasible way to redress the

grievances of the appellant. We are not saying anything on the merits of the

contentions advanced on the basis of sub-section (2) of section 19 of Act, 2008

since it is a subject matter to be considered by the District Collector in accordance

with law and if any observation is made with respect to the same, it may

prejudice the appellant in the pending adjudication proceedings. The learned

Single Judge has clearly directed the District Collector to consider the matter

taking into account the entire pros and cons and legal intricacies. We are of the

considered opinion that appellant has not made out any case for interference in

the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge there being no jurisdictional

error or other legal infirmities justifying us to do so.

Needless to say, writ appeal fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

                                                   SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                     JUDGE