[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sundaran vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 7 April, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
1
2026:KER:31020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SUNDARAN
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. PARANGODAN, ATHIKKADAN HOUSE, PANAKKAD,
OORAKAM P.O., MALAPPURAM (REGISTERED OWNER OF KL
10 BJ 3235 TIPPER AND KL 10 BF 0247 EARTH
REMOVER), PIN - 676519
BY ADV SHRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VENGARA POLICE STATION, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676304
2 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MANJERI,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676121
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MINI CIVIL STATION,TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676101
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
OORAKAM VILLAGE, OORAKAM P.O., MALAPPURAM,
PIN - 676519
BY ADV. SMT. DEEPA V., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.04.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2
2026:KER:31020
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C.).No.12229 of 2026
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of April, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
"i. to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ order or direction quashing Ext.P5 mahazar and
P6 report after calling for the report relating the
same .
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriated writ, order or direction directing the
1st respondent to release the vehicles of the
petitioner KL 10 BJ 3235 Tipper & KL 10 BF 0247
Earth Remover (JCB) to the petitioner forthwith
without imposing any condition.
iii. to such other further reliefs which this Hon'ble court
may deem fit and proper to allow in the facts and
circumstances of the case urged at the petitioner at
the time of hearing."(SIC)
2. Petitioner is the registered owner of an Earth
Remover (JCB) with registration No.KL 10 BF 0247 and a
hydraulic tipper bearing registration No.KL 10 BJ 3235. It is
alleged that the vehicles were seized as per Ext.P5 on
08.03.2026 (counsel for the petitioner submitted that the date
mentioned in Ext.P5 is actually 08.03.2026 and not 08.03.2023).
According to the petitioner, he is only the registered owner of
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2026:KER:31020
the vehicles and is not the owner of the property from where the
vehicles were seized by the official respondents. The petitioner
seeks interim custody of the vehicles.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, no
confiscation order is there.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of
the property, from where the vehicles were seized. The
petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicles.
6. This Court in Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar
(Land Records) [2026 (1) KHC 1], held as follows:
"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
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2026:KER:31020
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 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
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2026:KER:31020
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, 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."
7. Keeping in mind the above principle laid down
by this Court in Venugopalan's case (supra), I think the
vehicles can be released on imposing stringent conditions.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following
directions:
(i) The Earth Remover (JCB) bearing Registration
No.KL 10 BF 0247 and the hydraulic tipper bearing
Registration No.KL 10 BJ 3235, shall be released to
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2026:KER:31020
the petitioner, by executing a bond for
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five Lakhs only) each, with
two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the
satisfaction of the 1st respondent. I make it clear
that the 1st respondent shall not insist bank
guarantee or cash deposit and furnishing of title
document would be sufficient.
(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicles, till
the confiscation proceedings, if any initiated. The
release of the vehicles would be subject to the
confiscation proceedings, if any.
(iii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicles as and
when required by the confiscation authority.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 07.04.2026
Judgment dictated 07.04.2026
Draft Judgment placed 07.04.2026
Final Judgment 07.04.2026
uploaded
WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
2026:KER:31020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12229 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL 10 BJ
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE EARTH REMOVER
BEARING NO. KL 10 BF 0247
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT
DEED, REGISTRATION NO. 415/I/2021 OF
THE VENGARA S.R.O DATED 14-01-2021
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 4 TH RESPONDENT FOR HAVING PAID THE
TAX FOR THE ABOVE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR
2025-26 DATED :17/07/2025
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 08-03-
2023 PREPARED THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE 1 ST
RESPONDENT DATED 13-03-2026 TO THE 3 RD
RESPONDENT DATED NIL
