JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 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. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that having regard to the lie of the paddy lands and the nature of the paddy cultivation undertaken in the State, if individual owners are permitted to fence their respective portions of paddy lands, paddy cultivation would not be possible in the State. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that having regard to the lie of the paddy lands and the nature of the paddy cultivation undertaken in the State, if individual owners are permitted to fence their respective portions of paddy lands, paddy cultivation would not be possible in the State. According to the learned Government Pleader, any act of the owner of the paddy land which is not conducive for paddy cultivation shall be regarded as an act of conversion for the purpose of the Act, or otherwise, the object of the Act, viz. to promote growth in the agricultural sector cannot be achieved. 5. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act provides that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the Act however, clarifies that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds of the paddy land for protecting the cultivation. Section 3 of the Act reads thus: “3. Prohibition on conversion or reclamation of paddy land - (1) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation. As noted, what is prohibited in terms of Section 3 of the Act is activities for the conversion or reclamation of paddy lands. Let us first understand as to what would amount to conversion and what would amount to reclamation. Section 2(iii) of the Act which defines ‘conversion’ reads thus: 2(iii) “conversion” means the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. Let us first understand as to what would amount to conversion and what would amount to reclamation. Section 2(iii) of the Act which defines ‘conversion’ reads thus: 2(iii) “conversion” means the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other purpose. Section 2(xv) of the Act which defines ‘reclamation’ reads thus: 2(xv) “reclamation” means such act or series of acts whereby a paddy land or a wetland as defined in this Act is converted irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. The respondents do not have a case that the activity undertaken by the owner of the land would amount to reclamation. Their case, on the other hand, is only that the activity undertaken by the owner of the land would amount to conversion. Going by the definition, anything done in order to make use of a land, which has been under paddy cultivation, for any other purpose would amount to conversion. In other words, any activity undertaken by the owner of a paddy land for any purpose other than paddy cultivation would amount to conversion of the paddy land. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not argued that the activity undertaken by the owner of the land was for paddy cultivation. On the other hand, the argument of the learned counsel was only that the activity undertaken by the owner was for protecting the cultivation, and such activities are not prohibited as clarified in sub-section (2) of Section (3) of the Act. The question, therefore, is as to whether the activity undertaken by the owner of a paddy land for fencing the same using concrete poles and iron net could be regarded as an activity undertaken to protect paddy cultivation in the land.” 6. Having regard to the lie of the paddy lands and the nature of the paddy cultivation undertaken in the State, I am of the view that fencing of a paddy land using concrete poles and iron net cannot be regarded as an activity undertaken for protecting the cultivation, for such an activity is never undertaken by any person in the State to protect paddy cultivation. On the other hand, I have no doubt that the activity undertaken by the owner of the land is part of the preparatory work for making use of the land for other purposes, and as such, the same would certainly amount to conversion, which is prohibited by statute. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if acts not conducive for paddy cultivation are not regarded as acts of conversion in terms of the Act, the object of the Act, viz. to promote growth in the agricultural sector cannot be achieved. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner. 7. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.