NOUSHAD Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER, VATTAMKULAM VILLAGE, AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the averments in this Writ Petition (Civil) it is stated that when petitioner's vehicle (lorry) bearing Reg.No.KL-10-AD-419 was seized by the 1st respondent-Village Officer, Vattakkulam Village, Malappuram District, purportedly by virtue of the enabling provisions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, on the allegation that the petitioner used the lorry for filling the paddy land. That after such seizure, the 1st respondent-Village Officer has reported the fact of seizure before the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur, Malappuram District, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the then existing provisions contained in the Act, more particularly, in Sections 12 and 19 of the above said Act, as it stood at the time of seizure conducted on 28.4.2011, on which day the vehicle was allegedly involved in such offencce, the vehicle could be seized only by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer and that in the instant case, the seizure was effected by the Village Officer as per seizure mahazar dated 28.4.2011 and that he has no authority or jurisdiction to seize the vehicle in terms of the provisions contained in the Act. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P-2 application dated 29.4.2011 before the RDO stating the above said aspects and had requested to conduct an enquiry in the matter and to release the vehicle to the petitioner. That the 3rd respondent -RDO had not conducted any such enquiry and that this has led to the institution of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P-3 interim order rendered by this Court in a similar case in W.P.(C).No.11491/2011, wherein this Court had directed the respondents therein to release the vehicle in question within 3 days on the condition of the petitioner executing a bond in favour of the 2nd respondent that he would produce the vehicle as and when called for and that he will not transfer or alienate the vehicle except within the permission of this Court, etc. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition on 5.5.2011 with the following main prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is in dispute that the impugned seizure was effected by the 1st respondent-Village Officer as per Ext.P-1 dated 28.4.2011. As per the provisions contained in Sections 12(1) and 19(1) as it stood at the time of coming into force of the above Act, the Government by notification in the official Gazette could appoint such officer of the Revenue below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer as per Section 12(1). So also any Officer of the Revenue Department below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer or any Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf or any police officer below the rank of a Sub-inspector under Section 19(1) with a view to ensure the compliance of the provisions of this Act, may enter and search any premises and seize any vessel, vehicle or any other conveyance of machinery used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of this Act, etc. Later, the provisions of the said Act was amended by Act 14 of 2011 with retrospective effect from 12.8.2008 by substituting the words "Village Officer" as occurring in Section 12(1) and 19(1) with the words "Revenue Divisional Officer". Section 19(1) of the above Act as it stood after its amendment made effective from 12.8.2008 reads as follows: