Aneesh Kumar vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 7921 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.5893 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

      1        ANEESH KUMAR
               AGED 46 YEARS
               S/O SATHANANDHAN, MOOKKANCHERRY HOUSE, CLAPPANA
               VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-
               690 525.

      2        SARATH.S,
               AGED 30 YEARS
               S/O SATHYAN, CHAKKALA KIZHAKETHIL, NJAKKANAL
               P.O.KRISHNAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690 533.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
               SRI.BIJO THOMAS GEORGE
               SMT.NICEY A. MENON
               SRI.P.A.REJIMON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 013.

      2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               OCHIRA, OCHIRA VILLAGE, OCHIRA P.O.PIN-690 526.

      3        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
               AGRICULTURAL OFFICE, OCHIRA, PIN-690 526.

      4        THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               OCHIRA POLICE STATION, OCHIRA PIN-690 526.

               BY ADV.SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN.P, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5893 OF 2021(J)

                                       2




                           W.P.(C) No.5893 of 2021
                   -------------------------------------------


                               JUDGMENT

One Abdul Salam owns 11.45 Ares of land in Ochira village.

The said land is one included in the data bank prepared under the

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act).

The first respondent issued Ext.P4 notice to the first petitioner as also

to the said Abdul Salam, calling upon them to show cause why action

shall not be taken against them for having reclaimed the paddy land

owned by Abdul Salam contravening the provisions of the Act. In

Ext.P4, it is alleged that the owner of the land attempted to reclaim

the paddy land making use of an excavator owned by the first

petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P4, Ext.P5 order was issued by the first

respondent directing restoration of the paddy land and ordering

confiscation of the excavator of the first petitioner. Ext.P5 is under

challenge in the writ petition.

2. The case set out by the first petitioner in the writ

petition is that he has nothing to do with the reclamation of the land

and no notice was issued to him before ordering confiscation of the

vehicle as provided for under Section 20 of the Act. WP(C).No.5893 OF 2021(J)

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also

the learned Government Pleader.

4. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act empowers the

competent authority under the Act to confiscate the vehicles /

machines used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the

Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, however, provides that no

order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be made unless the

owner thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the

matter. Ext.P4 notice issued to the first petitioner reads thus:

"ഓചചറ വചലലലലജചൽ ബലലലലകല 4 ററസർലവ 247 / 18 ലല 11 . 45 ആർസല നചലല ലകരള ലനൽ വയൽ തണറർതട സലരക നചയമല 2008 ലസകൻ 5 (4 ) പലരകലരല തയലയലറലകചയ ലഡറല ബലങചൽ ഉൾലപടട വരടനതലണല. ടറ നചലല KL 16 F

-6430 നമർ JCB വലഹനല ഉപലയലഗചചല അനധചകകതമലയച രരപലനരലപടടതചയതല കലണതചയതചലന തടടർനല ടറ JCB ഓചചറ ലപലലറസല സബല ഇൻസല‌ലപകർ കസഡചലലടടതല ഓചചറ ലപലലറസല ലസഷനചൽ സരകചചടവരടനട. അനധചകകതമലയച നചലല രരപലനരലപടടതചയ വചഷയതചൽ തറരടമലനലമടടകടനതചനലയച 08 / 01 / 2021 നട 12 .00 pm മണചകല google meet പലരകലരല (ലചങല https :// meet .google .com /bfd -zwwc -opi ) ലകലലലലല ജചലലലല കളകറടലട കലരലയലലയല മടഖലനചരല തലങലള ലകൾകടനതചനല തറരടമലനചചചരചകടനട. ടച ദചവസല കകതലയസമയതടതലന തലങൾ ടച ഹചയറചങചനല പലങടടലകണതലണല."

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P4

notice does not give any indication that the proceedings initiated as

per the said notice is for confiscating the excavator of the first

petitioner as well in terms of Section 20 of the Act. In so far as the WP(C).No.5893 OF 2021(J)

confiscation of a valuable machinery like excavator is a serious matter

affecting the rights of parties, according to me, the provisions of the

statute in this regard need to be complied with strictly. In other words,

the notice prior to the confiscation order ought to have indicated the

proposal to confiscate the excavator and the grounds on which the

said proposal is made. Needless to say, Ext.P4 cannot be regarded as a

valid notice.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 order to the

extent it directs confiscation of the excavator of the first petitioner is

set aside and the first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders on

the proposal to confiscate the excavator, after issuing a fresh notice to

the first petitioner and showing the grounds on which the excavator is

proposed to be confiscated. This shall be done within six weeks.

Sd/-

                                            P.B.SURESH KUMAR

Mn                                                 JUDGE
 WP(C).No.5893 OF 2021(J)





                               APPENDIX
PETITIONERS'EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION

REPORT IN CRIME 2144/2020 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCENCE MAHAZAR DATED 30.11.2020 IN CRIME NO 2144/2020 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 30.11.2020 IN CRIME NO 2144/2020 OF OCHIRA POLICE STATION

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE NO 1/50880/2021 DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM IN FILE NUMBER DCKLM/12994/2020/L10 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE