Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice C.S. Dias quashed the District Collector’s order confiscating an excavator alleged to have been used for reclaiming paddy land in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court noted that, under the statutory scheme, vehicle owners often face stricter consequences than landowners in such cases. Finding that the petitioner had been denied a fair hearing before the confiscation order was passed, the Court directed the District Collector to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to be heard, with all coercive steps kept in abeyance until then.

The petitioner, the owner of an excavator rented out for earth-moving work, contended that his vehicle was seized by the revenue authorities while it was being used to dig a wastewater pit in a private property at Mananthavady Village. The landowner who hired the machine had informed the petitioner’s driver that the property was dry land. On the following day, the Village Officer directed the driver to take the excavator to the Tahsildar’s office, where it was seized without prior inspection. The seizure was allegedly based on false information, and subsequent requests for release of the vehicle were unsuccessful.

Also Read: S.27 Evidence Act | Only Disclosure Leading To Recovery Of Weapon Admissible, Not Statement Linking Weapon To Crime: Supreme Court

Information obtained through a Right to Information request showed that the seizure was recorded on one date while the accompanying mahazar and sketch were prepared the next day. The earthwork took place in property under Survey No. 207/2, which lay contiguous with another survey area, and only portions of the combined land were recorded in the official data bank as paddy fields. The petitioner later learned that proceedings had been initiated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for alleged illegal conversion.

He appeared before the District Collector following a notice received through a friend but claimed that no effective hearing was granted. The petitioner subsequently submitted representations seeking reconsideration. Meanwhile, the authorities, acting on reports from the Agricultural Officer, alleged that over two hectares of paddy land had been reclaimed and assessed the excavator’s value for confiscation. The District Collector issued an order confiscating the vehicle under Section 20 of the 2008 Act, permitting its release only upon payment of an amount fixed higher than the assessed value. The petitioner challenged the order as arbitrary and violative of natural justice, contending that he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case, and sought reconsideration of the proceedings by the competent authority

Justice C.S. Dias recorded that “the petitioner was not afforded an ample opportunity of preparing his defence and being heard.” The Court noted that the notice dated March 3, 2025, was served on the petitioner’s friend only on March 5, directing appearance the next day. The petitioner, a resident of Iritty, rushed to the District Collector’s office and gave a statement, but was later denied a full hearing.

The Court recorded that “the materials on record reveal that the excavator was seized on 29.01.2025,” and that the petitioner was told he would be given an opportunity to substantiate his contentions, which did not occur. Justice Dias further observed that “a reading of Ext.P11 order shows that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner, especially the principles relating to seizure laid down in Siraj v. District Collector and Deepu D. v. District Collector, Kollam, have been considered by the 3rd respondent.”

The judgment stated that there was “no material to prove that the excavator was seized from a paddy land or wetland, to attract the provisions of the Act, which is imperative to pass an order of confiscation.” The Court found the decision-making process leading to the confiscation order to be “illegal and arbitrary.” Justice Dias held that despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy, the Court was justified in exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, as there had been a clear violation of natural justice.

Also Read: Order XI Rule 14 CPC: Kerala High Court Upholds Co-operative Arbitration Court’s Power to Seek Production of Records in Election Dispute

The Court concluded that “the 3rd respondent had violated the rudimentary principles of natural justice,” and stated that it was inclined to quash the impugned order to ensure that the petitioner was granted “a full opportunity of being heard.”

“In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.P11 order and directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It would be upto the petitioner to submit his written submissions before the 3rd respondent within four weeks from today along with a copy of this judgment. If such written submissions are produced within the stipulated time period, 3rd respondent shall afford the petitioner, his Counsel, an opportunity of being heard, and then finalise the proceedings in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Until orders are passed, coercive proceedings against the excavator shall stand deferred.”

“The writ petition is ordered accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Sri. Krishna Prasad S., Smt. Sindhu S. Kamath, Smt. Swapna S.K., Smt. Rohini Nair, Shri. Suraj Kumar D., Shri. Sunil Kumar K.K., and Smt. A. Karthika Sivan.
For the Respondents: Sr. Government Pleader Smt. Preetha K.K.

Case Title: Venugopalan C. v. The Tahsildar (Land Records) & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:73584
Case Number: WP(C) No. 16627 of 2025
Bench: Justice C.S. Dias