SURENDRAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL -11/AG -5405, has come up before this Court challenging the confiscation of his vehicle in a proceeding initiated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"). The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the 2nd

(2.) respondent on 25.12.2012 alleging that the vehicle was used for unloading red earth in a property comprised in R.S.Nos.51/1A and 1B of Kuruvattoor Village, having an extent of 32 cents owned by one Ushakumari. According to the 2nd respondent, the vehicle was used for reclaiming paddy field in violation of the Act. According to the petitioner, though as a matter of fact, the revenue records describe the nature of land as 'nilam', it was a pacca garden land having several improvements and coconut trees aged more than 15 years. The petitioner alleges that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the property, which has been converted prior to the introduction of the Act; and therefore, the very seizure itself is illegal. The petitioner further points out that there are two houses situated in the adjacent property, which are constructed after the introduction of the Act. The petitioner points out that his vehicle was taken on rent by a contractor and the petitioner was not involved in the offence as alleged. The petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.318/2013, in which, this Court, by Ext.P4 judgment, directed the 1st respondent to consider the release of the vehicle as an interim measure within a period of two weeks from the date of application for claiming such release. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent stating that he was innocent. The petitioner alleges that the 1st respondent, without considering the real nature of the land, disposed of Ext.P5 application by Ext.P6 order directing the petitioner to remit 7,27,500/ -, being 1 1/2 times value of the seized vehicle, for interim custody. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's vehicle was engaged in illegal and unauthorized filling up of paddy land in R.S.No.52/1D of Kuruvattur Desom in Kuruvattur Village. According to the 1st respondent, this land was classified as 'nilam' in the revenue records and also included in the The 1st draft data bank prepared as per the Act. respondent has produced Ext.R1(a), which is the true The 1st copy of the relevant page of the Data Bank. respondent maintained the stand that as per Ext.R1(b) report of the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode, the vehicle was used for unauthorized conversion of paddy land; and therefore, the vehicle was seized and confiscated as per Section 20 of the Act. In compliance of the direction of this Court, Ext.P6 order was issued directing the petitioner to remit 7,27,500/ - as 1 1/2 times value of the said vehicle as reported by the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode. Therefore, the 1st respondent justified the stand taken by them.