Thaha R vs The District Collector on 7 April, 2026

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                                               2026:KER:30830


          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. 12582 OF 2026

PETITIONER/S:

          THAHA R
          AGED 42 YEARS
          S/O: RAJAN, THAHIRA MANZIL, PAZHAKULAM P O,
          PALLICKAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN - 691523

          BY ADV
          SMT.AAFINA SANTHOSH

RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY, KOLLAM, KERALA,
          PIN - 691013

    2     THE THASILDAR
          THALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          KARUNAGAPPALLY., PIN - 690518

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          CLAPPANA NORTH PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM
          DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 690525

    4     THE GEOLOGIST
          DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
          KESAVANIKETHAN, ASRAMAM, KOLLAM, KERALA,
          PIN - 691002

          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:
                                                            2026:KER:30830
WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

                                      2
                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                      --------------------------------
                    W.P (C) No.12582 of 2026
                       -------------------------------
                Dated this the 07th day of April, 2026

                                JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. Issue a writ of certiorari and quash Exhibit P-2 mahazar and its all further proceedings.

ii. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release vehicle belongs to petitioner bearing registration No.KL-04AB2324, forthwith.

iii. Issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ Direction or Order, declaring that the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle effected by the 3rd respondent on the basis of the Exhibit P-2 will not come under the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

iv. Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondents to forward entire report to the 1st respondent with respect to the seizure of the petitioner vehicle on the basis of the Exhibit P-2 mahazar forthwith, if it is not already forwarded and direct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner's vehicle on interim custody.

v. To dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.

2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

vi. Issue such other relief this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is the registered owner of a tipper lorry

bearing No.KL-04-AB-2324. The said vehicle was seized on

23.03.2026 by the 3rd respondent, alleging that the same is used

for illegal filling of a property, which is shown as 'nilam'.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Government

Pleader.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the owner of the

property from where the vehicle was seized. The petitioner is the

registered owner of the tipper lorry.

5. 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:

2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

(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 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 2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

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, 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 2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

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-04AB2324 shall be released to the petitioner

by 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 1 st respondent. I make

it clear that the 1st respondent shall not insist on a 2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

bank guarantee or a cash deposit, and that furnishing

of the title document would be sufficient.

(ii) The petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle till the

end of the confiscation proceedings, if any are

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

SSG
      Judgment reserved       NA
        Date of judgment     07.04.2026
       Judgment dictated     07.04.2026
    Draft Judgment Placed    07.04.2026

Final Judgment Uploaded 07.04.2026 2026:KER:30830 WP(C) NO.12582 OF 2026

APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12582 OF 2026

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID VEHICLE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL04AB2324 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED 23.03.2026, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTESTED DOCUMENT DATED 24.03.2026 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE SAID VEHICLE IN THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY