Kerala High Court
Subhadra. K vs The District Collector on 7 April, 2026
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
2026:KER:30789
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. 12760 OF 2026
PETITIONER/S:
SUBHADRA. K
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O KUNJI KRISHNAN, 578 C, MUNDAPPALLIL
PADINJATTATHIL, PONAKAM, MULLIKULANGARA,
THEKKEKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 690101
BY ADV
SRI.P.V.DILEEP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,
PIN - 688001
2 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R)/ R.D.O
ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.,
PIN - 688001
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KANNAMANGALAM P.O,
MAVELIKKARA THALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,,
PIN - 690106
4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 690101
5 PREETHA
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O. KOMALAKUTTAN, VADAKKATTU PUTHENKANDATHIL,
KOIPPALLIKARAZHMA, PERUNGALA VILLAGE,
OLAKETTIYABALAM P O, MAVELIKKARA THALUK,
2026:KER:30789
WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026
2
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,, PIN - 690510
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:30789
WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
W.P (C) No.12760 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 or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for records relating to Exhibit- P2 and quash the same.
ii) to declare that the action of 4th respondent seizing the JCB EXCAVATOR on 17.03.2026, belongs to the petitioner is highly illegal, arbitrary and not warranted by law.
iii) to issue necessary orders to the respondents 1 & 4 for the release of the JCB EXCAVATOR bearing registration No. KL 04 X 7881 belongs to the petitioner forthwith.
iv) dispense with the English translation of documents in vernacular language.
v) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding."
[SIC]
2. Petitioner is the registered owner of the JCB excavator bearing registration No.KL-04-X-7881. On 17.03.2026, the said JCB excavator was seized by the 4th respondent, alleging that the same is used for illegal excavation. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent handed over the petitioner's vehicle to the 1 st 2026:KER:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 4 respondent along with Ext.P2 report and seizure mahazar for further action. According to the petitioner, he is the only registered owner of the vehicle and has no connection to the landowner.
Hence, this writ petition.
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 JCB excavator.
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:
(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 2026:KER:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 5 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.
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 2026:KER:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 6 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 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."
2026:KER:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 7
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 JCB excavator bearing Registration No.KL-04-X-7881 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 1st respondent. I make it clear that the 1st respondent shall not insist on a 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.
2026:KER:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 8
(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:30789 WP(C) NO.12760 OF 2026 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 12760 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE R.C BOOK BEARING REGISTER NUMBER KL 04 X 7881 OF PETITIONER'S JCB EXCAVATOR.
Exhibit-P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SEIZURE MAHASAR DATED 17.03.2026 PRODUCED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit -P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO IN FILE NO. 164/2024 APPLICATION NO. 271/2023/988823 DATED 19.10.2024 SHOWING THAT THE LAND BELONGS TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DATA BANK.
Exhibit-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER FORM-
6 UNDER RULE 12(1) OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES DATED 23.10.2024.
Exhibit -P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.
KL04060104967/2025 ISSUED FROM 3RD RESPONDENTS OFFICE DATED 28.04.2025 BELONGS TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RE-SURVEY NO.615/11-2 , BLOCK NO. 11, THANDAPPER NO. 26918 FOR AN EXTENT OF 4 ARES 78 SQ. METERS OF PROPERTY IN KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA THALUK.
Exhibit-P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 89114276 ISSUED FROM 3RD RESPONDENTS OFFICE DATED 22.10.2024 BELONGS TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN RE-SURVEY NO.615/11-2 , BLOCK NO. 11, THANDAPPER NO. 26918 FOR AN EXTENT OF 4 ARES 78 SQ. METERS OF PROPERTY IN KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA THALUK.
Exhibit -P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.03.2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit-P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.C NO. 19636/2025 DATED 02.06.2025 BY THIS HONORABLE COURT.