Kerala High Court On Paddy Land Act | Magistrate Can’t Grant Custody Once Seized Vehicles Are With Collector
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun held that interim custody of vehicles seized for alleged illegal transportation of earth cannot be granted by the Magistrate once the vehicles have already been handed over to the District Collector. The Court declined to interfere with the Magistrate's order rejecting interim custody applications and permitted the petitioners to file fresh applications before the District Collector, who was suo motu impleaded as a respondent. The Court directed that if such applications are filed within two weeks, the District Collector shall pass orders thereon within two weeks thereafter.
The two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases arose out of independent but related proceedings concerning the seizure of two vehicles. The petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 4183 of 2025 was the registered owner of a Swaraj Mazda Super Tipper bearing registration No. KL 02 AC 5750, while the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 4182 of 2025 owned a Cab Chassis Tipper with registration No. KL 2 C 3077. Both vehicles were seized on allegations of unauthorized transportation of ordinary earth in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2019.
Following the seizure, both petitioners filed separate applications under Section 503 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class – III (Forest Offences), Nedumangad, seeking interim custody of the seized vehicles. These applications were rejected by the learned Magistrate by orders dated 28 April 2025. Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court through the present Criminal Miscellaneous Cases.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Magistrate’s rejection was erroneous and contrary to binding precedent. The petitioners relied on Annexure 3, an earlier order in Crl.M.C. No. 9959/2023, allegedly passed in similar factual circumstances. The contention was that the jurisdictional Magistrate retained the authority to grant interim custody even in the absence of a crime being registered. In support of this submission, the counsel invoked the legal maxim “Bonijudicis est ampliare jurisdictionem”, meaning “It is the part of a good Judge to enlarge his jurisdiction.”
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the vehicles in question had already been handed over to the District Collector. The seizure was effected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palode Police Station, and, following communication from the District Geologist, the vehicles were transferred to the District Collector on 14 April 2025. In view of this factual development, the State contended that any request for release of the vehicles ought to be made to the District Collector, not to the Magistrate.
The Court noted that, although in Shan v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 413] and Eldhose Mani v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam and Others [2022 (7) KHC 91], jurisdictional Magistrates had been directed to reconsider similar petitions for interim custody, the critical distinction in the present cases was that the vehicles had already been handed over to the custody of the District Collector.
The petitioners had produced relevant documents to establish their ownership, including registration certificates and insurance certificates (Annexures 1 and 2). They also submitted prior judicial orders and the impugned Magistrate orders as annexures. The High Court found that, due to the factual position regarding the handover of the vehicles, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the Magistrate.
The Court examined the procedural context and observed that, although precedents existed permitting Magistrates to entertain interim custody applications, the present cases stood on different factual footing. Justice V.G. Arun stated: “No doubt, this Court in Shan v. State of Kerala [2010 (3) KLT 413] and Eldhose Mani v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam and Others [2022 (7) KHC 91] had directed the jurisdictional Magistrate to reconsider the applications for interim custody.”
However, he recorded that: “In the cases at hand, the vehicles are handed over to the District Collector. In such circumstances, even if the Magistrate is directed to reconsider the petition, that will be a futile exercise.”
In response to the argument advanced by the petitioners that jurisdiction remained with the Magistrate even in absence of a registered crime, supported by the legal maxim “Bonijudicis est ampliare jurisdictionem”, the Court did not disagree with the proposition but held that it would not serve any practical purpose in the facts at hand.
Regarding the procedure followed by the authorities, the Court acknowledged: “The vehicles were seized by the Sub Inspector, Palode Police Station. Thereafter, based on a communication received from the District Geologist, the vehicles are to be handed over to the District Collector on 14.04.2025.”
The Court, therefore, concluded that directing the Magistrate to reconsider would not yield any result and noted: “In spite of the appealing arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to close these Crl.M.Cs, reserving the petitioners’ right to approach the District Collector seeking release of the vehicles.”
In the light of the factual developments and the legal position discussed, the Court disposed of the Criminal Miscellaneous Cases with the following directions:
“In the nature of the direction that is being issued, the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram is suo-moto impleaded as additional respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the additional respondent.”
Further, the Court directed: “If the petitioners file appropriate applications within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, orders thereon shall be passed by the District Collector within a further period of two weeks.”
Accordingly, the Court refrained from remanding the matter to the Magistrate and instead placed the matter before the District Collector for appropriate action.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. S. Nikhil Sankar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth (Crl.M.C. No. 4182/2025), Public Prosecutor M.C. Ashi
Case Title: Revathy C v. State of Kerala & Nithin A.S. Nair v. State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:40289
Case Number: Crl.M.C. Nos. 4182 & 4183 of 2025
Coram: Justice V.G. Arun
[Read/Download order]
