DANISH V KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision arises from the judgment of the District Court, Thodupuzha in CMA No. 16 of 2012 setting aside Order No. C9 - 17068/11 dated 29.03.2012 of the District Collector, Idukki directing to re-consider the road issue in the light of the directions earlier issued.

(2.) THE petitioner is the owner of a JCB earth mover. That vehicle was seized by the Sub Collector, Idukki on 02.05.2011 allegedly on the information that the said earth mover was being used for unauthorised conversion of the land belonging to one Surendran in violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet land Act - 2008 (for short, "the Act"). Concerning its interim custody, the petitioner had initiated some proceedings in this court. The District Collector passed order of confiscation which the petitioner challenged in CMA No. 35 of 2011. That appeal was allowed by judgment dated 21.11.2011 and the matter was remitted to the District Collector for fresh decision with certain directions to be complied with that authority. The District Collector was directed to give opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence regarding nature of the land and whether any prior permission was obtained from the authorities for conversion of the land by its owner. The District Collector was further directed to consider other points discussed in the judgment referred to in the order cited. Thereafter the District Collector passed order on 29.03.2012 ordering confiscation of the JCB earth mover of the petitioner. That order was challenged in CMA No. 16 of 2012.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was sufficient material to show that the petitioner has not violated any of the provisions of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the JCB was being used only to level the foundation of the house being constructed by Surendran which had been reclaimed years back as revealed by the documents. It is also argued by the learned counsel that Surendran had obtained valid permit for construction of the building. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure - C2, photocopy of the certificate dated 19.12.2012 of the Agricultural Officer where it is stated that the land belonging to Surendran was reclaimed about 50 years back. My attention is also drawn to the observations made by the learned District Judge in the judgment in CMA No. 35 of 2011 and in particular, paragraphs 7 and 10.