[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Basheer vs The Inspector Of Police on 6 April, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 11078 OF 2026 1
2026:KER:30140
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 16TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 11078 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
MUHAMMED BASHEER
AGED 52 YEARS
CHERIKKALLAN VEEDU, MACHAMTHODE, THACHAMBARA
P.O., KARAKURISSI, PALAKKAD (OWNER OF TIPPER
LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL-05-X-4303), PIN
- 678593
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KALLADIKODE POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 678596
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.DEEPA V,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11078 OF 2026 2
2026:KER:30140
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 11078 of 2026
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
1. "Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the
records relating to the seizure of the petitioner's
vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-05-X-4303 by
the first respondent as per Exhibit P1 mahazar and
quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and
unsustainable in law.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction commanding
the respondents to release the petitioner's vehicle
bearing Registration No. KL-05-X-4303 forthwith to
the petitioner.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
second respondent to consider and finalize the
adjudication proceedings under Section 21 of the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland
2026:KER:30140
Act, 2008 within a time limit as may be fixed by this
Honourable Court.
4. Declare that the continued detention of
the petitioner's vehicle without any material
showing violation of the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008
is illegal and unsustainable.
5. Grant such other reliefs as this
Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case. 6. Exempt the
production of translated copies of vernacular
documents of the subject matter. [sic]
2. The vehicle of the petitioner has been
seized by the 1st respondent stating that the vehicle is used
in violation of the provisions of Kerala Conservation of
Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'Act, 2008').
According to the petitioner, he is the registered owner of
the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.KL-05-X-4303 and
he has no connection with the owner of the property, from
where the vehicle is seized. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The counsel for the petitioner relied the
2026:KER:30140
judgment of this Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar
(Land Records) [2026 (1) KHC 1]. The relevant portion of the
above judgment is extracted hereunder :
"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 power of the
District Collector. It provides discretion to the District
Collector upon seizure of a vehicle, allowing them to
2026:KER:30140
either confiscate it or release it without confiscation. The
Legislature's intention in using the word "may" would
indicate that not every seizure of an article or vehicle
must result in confiscation. We need to look into the word
"may" and how we interpret the meaning of "may" is the
question involved in this issue.
8. A paddy land or wetland, as the case
may be, if it is included in the data bank, it is declared by
the law that it cannot be converted or reclaimed. The
owner of such land is legally barred under Section 3 of
the Act from undertaking an activity for reclamation or
conversion of the land except in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. The prohibition applies to the
owner, occupier, or person in custody of such land.
Similar provisions have been made under Section 11 of
the Act on the reclamation of wetland. But in Section 11,
there is a total prohibition against reclamation of land
without reference to ownership or the nature of the
relationship of the person on such land. It may not make
much difference, as far as contravention of such provision
is concerned, since the seizure is made qua the article
used for contravention of Section 3 or Section 11 of the
Act, as the case may be. The liability of the owner would
arise qua Section 3, and the liability of the third party
would arise in the confiscation proceedings under Section
20. It is in Section 20 that a discretion is left to the
District Collector. But, as we noted earlier, the
discretionary power given to the District Collector in
Section 20 of the Act, in fact, is not based on Section 3 of
the Act, where there is a clear prohibition against
reclamation or conversion of paddy land by the owner or
occupier or any person in custody of the land. Therefore,
2026:KER:30140
any article or vehicle used by such an owner would
necessarily result in confiscation, and there is no element
of discretion left to the District Collector. That creates
some sort of absolute liability. We state that the absolute
liability is based on Section 3, which gives no room for
avoidance of any inevitable consequence of the act of
reclamation or conversion. That is not the case when an
article belonging to a third party is used for the
reclamation or conversion. In such situations, the issue
falls within the realm of the strict liability principle. Such
persons (third party) can always plead innocence.
Innocence is not to exonerate from the act, but to absolve
from the ultimate action of Section 20 of the Act. We state
that it is based on the strict liability principle, a third
party's responsibility would arise when he uses an article
or vehicle for such conversion. The exoneration or
impunity is not based on the innocence of the act, but to
escape from the ultimate penalty of confiscation."
6. Keeping in mind the above principle laid down
by this Court in Venugopalan's case (supra), I think the
vehicle can be released on imposing stringent conditions.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
(i) The tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-05-X-
4303 shall be released to the petitioner, by
2026:KER:30140
executing a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five
Lakhs only), with two solvent sureties for the like
sum each to the satisfaction of the 2nd respondent.
I make it clear that the 2nd respondent shall not
insist bank guarantee or cash deposit and
furnishing of title document would be sufficient.
(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle, till the
confiscation proceedings is over, if any initiated.
The release of the vehicle would be subject to the
confiscation proceedings, if any.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle as and
when required by the confiscation authority.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06/04/2026
Judgment dictated 06/04/2026
Draft judgment placed 06/04/2026
Final judgment uploaded 06/04/2026
2026:KER:30140
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 11078 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHASAR
PREPARED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZURE OF THE
VEHICLE OF PETITIONER DATED 12.2.2026
ALONG WITH TYPED READABLE COPY
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DATED 27.2.2026 IN
WP©. NO. 5088 OF 2026
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT DATED 14.10.2025 IN
WPC. NO.18946 OF 2025
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
23.11.2023 IN WPC NO.38331 OF 2023
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
06.05.2025 IN W.P(C) 16846 OF 2025
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
27.05.2024 IN W.P(C) 17609 OF 2024
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT
