Thankaraj vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 6148 Ker

Kerala High Court

Thankaraj vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                2025:KER:35168
WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

                               1


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

   THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2025 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1947

                    WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

PETITIONERS:

         THANKARAJ,
         AGED 39 YEARS
         S/O NALLASAMI, THALAKKATTU HOUSE, KETHEKKADU,
         CHERUVATHUR P O, KASARGOD, PIN - 671313


         BY ADVS.
         P.DEEPAK (SR.)
         MANJUSHA K
         SREELAKSHMI SABU
         P.K.SUBHASH


RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA,
         REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
         DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
         695001.

    2    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
         CIVIL STATION,VIDYA NAGAR P O, KASARGOD,
         PIN - 671123

    3    THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         THAYALANDAI P O, KASARGOD, PIN - 671121

    4    THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN PADNE, PANATHADY, PANATHUR, PO,
         KASARGOD, PIN - 671532
                                                          2025:KER:35168
WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

                                  2



     5     THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
           CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD, PIN - 671310



OTHER PRESENT:

           GP SMT DEEPA V


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   22.05.2025,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                            2025:KER:35168
WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

                             3




                                              "C.R"

                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2025

What is the procedure to confiscate a vehicle under

Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act', in short)?

2.The petitioner is the owner of an excavator

bearing registration No. KL-60-U-1606. On 24.06.2023,

alleging that the excavator was being used to convert a

paddy land, the Station House Officer of the Chandera

Police Station seized it and submitted Ext.P1 report to

the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Agricultural Officer

reported to the District Collector (2 nd respondent) that

the excavator was seized from a property that is

classified as paddy land and included in the data bank.

The 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, to

show cause why the excavator should not be confiscated.

2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

The petitioner filed his objections to the notice.

However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2nd

respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.

44,85,000/-, i.e., one and a half times the value of the

excavator, failing which the excavator would be

confiscated. Ext.P4 order is illegal and is liable to be set

aside.

3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement

contending that the excavator was used to illegally

convert a paddy land. The Sub Collector and the 5 th

respondent have confirmed that the paddy land was

illegally converted by using the excavator. The 2 nd

respondent issued notice to the petitioner, heard him,

fixed the value of the excavator at Rs.29,90,000/-, based

on Annexure R2(b) report of the Motor Vehicles

Department, and then passed Ext.P4 order. There is no

error in the impugned order.

4. Heard, Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa. V.,

the learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Sections 19

and 20 of the Act, and contended that the procedure

adopted by the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned

order is illegal and irregular. The 2nd respondent has

placed the cart before the horse. The petitioner was not

afforded a proper hearing, and the impugned order has

been passed without any application of mind. Section 20

mandates the 2nd respondent to first consider whether

the confiscation proceeding has to be initiated. If he is

satisfied to proceed with the confiscation, he should

have, after hearing the petitioner, passed a consolidated

order with reasons, by giving the petitioner the option

to pay one and a half times the value of the excavator, in

lieu of confiscation, and failing which, ordered the

confiscation of the excavator. Instead, the 2nd respondent 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

has pre-judged the matter by issuing Ext.P6 show cause

notice directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 44,85,000/-

and, thereafter, has passed the impugned order. The

learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of this

Court in State of Kerala and others v. Navaru

Swapna Reddy (2022 (1) KLT 731) to fortify his

contention. He prayed that the impugned order may be

quashed.

6. The learned Government Pleader

defended the impugned order. She contended that the

petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard as

envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act.

By Ext.P6 show cause notice, the petitioner was granted

an opportunity to pay one and a half times the value of

the excavator before passing the confiscation order.

There is no irregularity in the proceeding. She relied on

sub-section (3) of Section 20 and contended that, an

order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall not be 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

made invalid merely for the reason of any defect or

irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2) of

Section 20, if the provisions of the Act have been

substantially complied with. She prayed that the writ

petition may be dismissed.

7. The petitioner's contention is that, the 2 nd

respondent has passed Ext.P4 order in flagrant violation

of Section 20 of the Act. It is apposite to refer to Section

20, which reads as follows:

"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:

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 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

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."

8. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act

demonstrates that, upon receiving a report of seizure,

either under Section 12 or 19, the District Collector is

obligated to examine whether the circumstances justify

the confiscation of the seized object. On being

objectively satisfied that the confiscation is warranted,

the District Collector has to issue a notice to the owner

of the object, afford him an opportunity of being heard,

and then pass a composite order of confiscation,

granting the owner the option to pay a sum equivalent to

one and a half times of the value of the seized object, as

determined by him. The order must further direct that,

in the event of failure of the owner to remit the ordered

amount, the seized object will stand confiscated.

9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was duly 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

served with notice, he filed his objections, and he was

heard by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, sub-section (2)

of Section 20 was complied with. Nonetheless, the

infirmity in the procedure adopted by the 2 nd respondent

lies in issuing Ext.P6 show cause notice, directing the

petitioner to remit one and a half times the value of the

excavator before the passing of the confiscation order,

This by itself substantiates that the District Collector has

pre-judged the issue. The procedure followed by the 2 nd

respondent is untenable and not envisaged under the

Act. Hence, I am satisfied that the impugned order is

liable to be quashed, and the 2nd respondent be directed

to reconsider the matter afresh as per the framework of

the Act.

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, the excavator was seized by the

respondents on 24.6.2023. For the last two years, the

excavator has been left exposed to the vagaries of 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

nature. The excavator is getting rusted and ruined, and

its value is depreciating day by day. Therefore, subject to

the outcome of the confiscation proceeding, the interim

custody of the excavator may be granted to the

petitioner on such conditions fixed by this Court. I find

the said submission to be reasonable and justifiable.

In the above conspectus, I allow the writ petition in

the following manner:

(i) Ext.P4 order is quashed.

(ii) The 2 respondent is directed to consider the nd

matter afresh, i.e., from the stage after hearing the

petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with the law.

(iii) The authorised officer of the respondents is

directed to grant interim custody of the excavator to

the petitioner, on him executing a bond in favour of

the 2 respondent for Rs.44,85,000/- with two sureties nd

for the like sum, and with an additional condition that

the petitioner shall not transfer, sell or diminish the 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

value of excavator, and use it only for lawful purposes.

Needless to mention that, the bond shall have a

charge over the properties of the petitioner and his

sureties.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

mea 2025:KER:35168 WP(C) NO. 45276 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 45276/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24-6-2023

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-11-2023

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO.16703 OF 2024 DATED 2-9-2024

Exhibit P4 . TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN DCKSGD/7212/2023-L3 UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008 DATED 27-7-2024

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE NOTIFICATION OF DATA BANK OF PADNE VILLAGE DATED 24-3-2012

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No. DCKSGD/7212/2023/L3 DATED 14.06.2024

ANNEXURE R2(a) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK

ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT No. C1254/2022 DATED 05.02.2024 OF THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.06.2024