Kerala High Court
Jayachandran vs State Of Kerala on 8 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021/17TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9135 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MURUGAN (H),
PERUVA, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 610.
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY
AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 002.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575.
4 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM 686 141.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILA VILLAGE,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM 686 141.
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VAIKOM - 686 141.
7 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VAIKOM POLICE STATION,
VAIKOM - 686 141.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9135/2021
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021/17TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9168 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MURUGAN (H),
PERUVA, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686610.
BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY AND
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 575.
4 TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM-686 141.
5 VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILE VILLAGE,
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141.
6 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VAIKOM-686 141.
7 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM-686141.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.9135/2021
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2021
These writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner,
relates to same set of facts and contain similar prayers.
Hence they are heard together and being disposed of by a
common judgment.
2. The petitioner's son owns a TATA Tipper Lorry
bearing registration No. KL-04-T-6280. The petitioner is the
owner of another TATA Tipper Lorry bearing registration
No.KL-17-5108. On 15.01.2020, both the lorries were
seized on an allegation that the lorries were deployed to
reclaim land of one Jayapradeep situated near
Kaniyamthode - Perumchila road in Naduvila village,
Vaikom Taluk, using ordinary earth, violating the provisions
of Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
3. The petitioner submits that he was oblivious of
the fact that the land of the said Jayapradeep was one
WP(C) No.9135/2021
included in the land Data Bank prepared under the
provisions of Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The
vehicles were not used for reclamation of any land. The
petitioner submitted applications seeking to release the
vehicles since those were not used to commit any offence
under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The
applications were however rejected by the District Collector.
The seizure of the lorries and their continued detention, are
illegal and arbitrary, contended the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Pleader opposed the
writ petitions and denied all material allegations made
therein. The learned Government Pleader argued that the
facts involved in the writ petitions are disputed questions of
fact and this Court cannot adjudicate the issue at this stage
and the proceedings initiated by the statutory authorities will
have to arrive at proper conclusion after due enquiry.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader representing the
WP(C) No.9135/2021
respondents.
6. In these cases as far as vehicle bearing
registration No.KL-04-T-6280 is concerned, the petitioner's
case is that the ordinary earth was unloaded on the side of
the road and not in any compound which can be described
as 'nilam'. The petitioner had produced photographs in
proof of the said fact. Further more, it is an admitted fact
that a part of the land where the ordinary earth is allegedly
intended to be used is 'nilam' and another part falls under
the category of garden land as per the Data Bank.
7. If the ordinary earth was intended to be used in a
garden land, no prosecution will be maintainable, as against
the owner of the lorry, in which case seizure of the vehicle
will be illegal. However, this being a disputed question of
fact a proper conclusion has to be arrived at by competent
authority. Going through Ext.P10 order, it is clear that the
specific contentions of the petitioner relating to the place of
unloading ordinary earth, supported by the photographs
WP(C) No.9135/2021
produced by the petitioner, was not appropriately
considered by the 2nd respondent. A proper conclusion as
to the nature of the land where the ordinary earth was
allegedly intended to be downloaded, has to be arrived at.
8. In the case of vehicle bearing No.KL-17-5108,
the contention of the petitioner is that the law laid down by
this Court in the judgment in Amity Rock Products v.
District Collector [2021(2) KLT 32] would apply to the facts
in this case. Seizure of vehicle can be effected only when
ordinary earth is unloaded in a paddy land. The learned
Government Pleader on the other hand would distinguish
the facts of Amity Rock Products (supra) pointing out that
in the said case, the ordinary earth was unloaded in a
converted land. Though the applicability of the said
judgment is disputed, this Court is of the opinion that the
authority ought to have ascertained the nature of the land
where the ordinary earth was unloaded.
9. In view of the afore facts, in WP(C)
WP(C) No.9135/2021
No.9135/2021, Ext.P10 order of the 2 nd respondent is set
aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the
issue in the light of the specific contentions of the petitioner
relating to the place of unloading of ordinary earth and the
nature of the land where the ordinary earth is intended to be
used. WP(C) No.9168/2021 is disposed of directing the 2 nd
respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for
release of vehicle in the light of the judgment of this Court in
Amity Rock Products (supra). To enable the 2nd
respondent to reconsider the matter, Ext.P10 is set aside.
In both the writ petitions, orders as directed above
shall be passed within six weeks. The writ petitions are
disposed as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd/08.07.2021
WP(C) No.9135/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9135/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT
DATED 27.5.17.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PASS DATED 15.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED
15.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT DATED 18.1.2020
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR
SEIZURE DATED 15.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO.L2-305/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.D.C.K.T.M/2689/2020-R4 DATED
16.2.2021.
WP(C) No.9135/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9168/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT
DATED 13/05/2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PASS DATED 15/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED
15/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
18/01/2019OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR
SEIZURE DATED 15/01/2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING
NO.L2-305/2019
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20/2/2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPINDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.D.C.K.T.M/2689/2020-R4 DATED
16.2.2021.
