THANKARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the procedure to confiscate a vehicle under Sec. 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('Act', in short)?

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of an excavator bearing registration No. KL-60-U-1606. On 24/6/2023, alleging that the excavator was being used to convert a paddy land, the Station House Officer of the Chandera Police Station seized it and submitted Ext.P1 report to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Agricultural Officer reported to the District Collector (2nd respondent) that the excavator was seized from a property that is classified as paddy land and included in the data bank. The 2nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner, to show cause why the excavator should not be confiscated. The petitioner filed his objections to the notice. However, by the impugned Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs.44,85,000.00, i.e., one and a half times the value of the excavator, failing which the excavator would be confiscated. Ext.P4 order is illegal and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The 2nd respondent has filed a statement contending that the excavator was used to illegally convert a paddy land. The Sub Collector and the 5th respondent have confirmed that the paddy land was illegally converted by using the excavator. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner, heard him, fixed the value of the excavator at Rs.29,90,000.00, based on Annexure R2(b) report of the Motor Vehicles Department, and then passed Ext.P4 order. There is no error in the impugned order.