[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Essy T Samuel vs District Collector on 6 February, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2026
1
2026:KER:10512
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 17TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 1474 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
ESSY T SAMUEL
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O SAMUEL, THATTAMPURAM HOUSE, VENGOOR WEST,
CHUNDAKUZHY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683546
BY ADV SRI.BINU PAUL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682030
2 THE TAHSILDAR
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 683542
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KOMBANAD VILLAGE, VENGOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN
- 683546
4 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KURUPPAMPADY POLICE STATION, KURUPPAMPADY P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683549
BY ADV. SMT.DEEPA V,GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2026
2
2026:KER:10512
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 1474 of 2026
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction commanding the respondents to release
the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-40-C-6516 to the
petitioner within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
(ii) a declaration that the seizure of the vehicle owned by
the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, and without authority of law;
(iii) to dispense with the requirement of filing translations
of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in this Writ
Petition; and
(iv) to issue any other writ, order, or direction that this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."[SIC]
2. The petitioner is the owner of a tipper lorry
bearing Registration No. KL-40-C-6516. On 06.01.2026, the
said vehicle was seized by the 4th respondent on the
apprehension that it was allegedly used for transporting
sand/red earth for reclaiming paddy land in Re-survey No.
140/5 of Kombanad Village, Ernakulam District. According to
the petitioner, the property is not included in the data bank as
2026:KER:10512
'nilam' and therefore the provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not
attracted. Hence this Writ Petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The short point raised by the petitioner is that
the property from where the vehicle is seized is not included
in the data bank.
5. The Government Pleader submitted that, she
has doubt whether the property is included in the data bank
or not.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the
vehicle and not the owner of the property. This Court in
Venugopalan C. v. Tahsildar (Land Records),
Mananthavady, Wayanad [2025 KHC OnLine 2172]
considered a similar matter in detail. It will be better to
extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
"6. We find that the answers to the pointed questions
tend to overlap, making it appropriate for us to consider
and answer all the questions together.
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
2026:KER:10512
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
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.
2026:KER:10512
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 the
act of reclamation or conversion. That is not the case
2026:KER:10512
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.
9. The case of such a third party would be different if he
is attributed with knowledge or connivance with the
landowner. If that is attributed and established, then even
if the penalty appears disproportionate, such a third party
cannot be absolved or exonerated merely by citing
disproportionate punishment. See the consistent view
taken by this Court with reference to confiscations under
similar statutes.
9.i. A Full Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v.
Sukumara Panicker [1987 (2) KLT 341] dealt with the
question of proportionality in forest offence and held as
follows:
"7. We are aware of the trend in recent judicial thought
that if a punishment is ''altogether excessive" and "out of
proportion'' to the occasion, the Court can interfere. The
revocation of a market trader's licence which entailed
deprivation of his livelihood was held to be excessive
penalty in relation to an offence committed by the trader
which was indulgence in abusive language. (See R. v.
Barnsley MBC-1976 (3) All ER 452). See also CCSU. v.
Minister for the Civil Service - (1984) 3 All ER 935 at p.
2026:KER:10512
950), where the question was left open. But, the question
that arises in this case is far different. Here, the offence
committed and proved is a "forest offence". One of the
punishments levied is confiscation of the vehicle, which
was used in committing the offence. The offence is one
against public interest and a serious one. The only
question is whether confiscation of the vehicle, used in
the commission of the said offence, is justified. No
question of proportionality between the offence
committed and the punishment levied can arise, in
ordering confiscation of the vehicle used in the
commission of the forest offence."
9.ii. A Single Bench of this Court reiterated the same
view in Juby John v. State of Kerala [2023 Supreme
(Online)(KER) 11418].
10. It is to be noted that the statutory provision cannot
be construed to exculpate a third party who had no
knowledge, but intended to absolve him from the liability
of the act committed, and to exonerate him from facing
the ultimate consequence of the confiscation. This is
exactly why "may" is used in Section 20 of the Act, which
allows the District Collector to let off such innocent
persons. If the statutory provision provides for discretion,
confiscation is not obligatory in all cases, and discretion
should be exercised based on the facts and
circumstances. {See the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh
High Court in Shrish Agrawal v. State of M.P. and another
[ILR 2003 MP 579].}"
7. Keeping in mind the above principle, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner's vehicle can be
2026:KER:10512
released subject to appropriate conditions.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
1. The competent authority among the respondents will
release the tipper lorry bearing Registration No. KL-40-
C-6516, on executing a bond for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned who
is releasing the vehicle. The petitioner is required to
produce only the title documents of property to the
value of the bond for the release of the vehicle.
2. The release of the vehicle will be subject to the
confiscation proceedings, if any.
3. If any confiscation proceedings are pending, the
petitioner shall not alienate the vehicle without
obtaining prior permission from the officer concerned.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 06.02.2026
Judgment dictated 06.02.2026
Draft Judgment placed 06.02.2026
Final Judgment uploaded 06 .02.2026
2026:KER:10512
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 1474 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION
CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE NO. KL-40-C-
6516 DATED 28.01.2010
EXHIBIT P 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 10.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICE, KOMBANAD
EXHIBIT P3 THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK DATED
NIL
