(1.) Petitioner owns a pickup van bearing registration No. KL-48M-5492. The pickup van of the petitioner was hired by one Abdulla for the purpose of transporting concrete poles and iron net to be used for fencing a paddy land owned by him. When the concrete poles and iron net transported in the pickup van were about to be unloaded at the site, the third respondent seized the pickup van alleging contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The petitioner does not dispute the fact that the land owned by Abdulla is a paddy land included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner does not also dispute the fact that the third respondent is empowered to seize any vehicle used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The case of the petitioner is only that fencing of a paddy land by its owner cannot be regarded as an activity undertaken in contravention of the provisions of the Act and hence, the third respondent was not justified in seizing the vehicle. The petitioner challenges the seizure of his vehicle on that ground in the writ petition.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only conversion or reclamation of a paddy land can be regarded as an activity carried on in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Referring to the definition of 'conversion' contained in Section 2(iii) of the Act, the learned counsel submitted that the fencing activity undertaken by the owner of the land would not fall within the scope of 'conversion' defined in the Act. Placing reliance on sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, the learned counsel also argued that fencing of the paddy land undertaken by the owner of the land can be regarded only as an act carried out for protecting the cultivation.