JUDGMENT : The petitioner, whose JCB Excavator bearing registration No.KL-23U-6043 has been seized alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P6 order of the 1st respondent-District Collector and to direct the 1st respondent to give the interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that he used to let on hire the JCB to needy people, as a means of his livelihood. The JCB was used to clear bushes in a land in Clappana Village, on 19.03.2022. The 3rd respondent-Village Officer came to the spot and seized the JCB stating that the land is 'Nilam' in Revenue records and the JCB was used to violate the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2008”, for brevity). 3. The petitioner states that 7.69 Ares of land in Survey No.603/9-1 of Clappana Village where the JCB was used, is not included in the Data Bank and hence is an unnotified land. It, in fact, is a garden land with standing trees 20 year old. A report has not been forwarded to the 1st respondent-District Collector so far and the matter is still pending with the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar. 4. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10778 of 2022 and this Court by Ext.P5 order on 31.03.2022 directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s request for interim custody of the JCB. The 1st respondent conducted a hearing and passed Ext.P6 order directing to confiscate the JCB, because the property where the JCB was used is shown as 'Nilam' in Revenue records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that since the land is admittedly an unnotified land, Ext.P6 is unsustainable. In Ext.P2 Mahazar, there is no allegation that the JCB was used to fill up a land included in the Data Bank. Even though in Revenue records the property is described as 'Nilam', as long as the land is not included in the Data Bank, no offence of converting the land can be sustained. 6. In Ext.P2 Mahazar, there is no allegation that the JCB was used to fill up a land included in the Data Bank. Even though in Revenue records the property is described as 'Nilam', as long as the land is not included in the Data Bank, no offence of converting the land can be sustained. 6. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in Sabu T.K. v. State of Kerala and others [ 2017 (2) KHC 610 ] and argued that even when a vehicle was seized alleging filling up of a notified land which was described as converted land in Data Bank, this Court held that there could be no proceedings initiated for violation of the provisions of the Act, 2008 since there was no filling up of paddy land or wetland. 7. The counsel for the petitioner further relied on the judgment in Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt.) Limited v. State of Kerala and others [ 2011 (1) KLT 526 ] wherein this Court has held that for any successful prosecution proceedings, there should be a notification under Section 5(4) of the Act, 2008 and the violation of the provisions of the Act by converting or reclaiming any such land notified alone, will lead to a conviction. In the petitioner’s case, the land is not notified and therefore there cannot be any prosecution or punishment. 8. The Senior Government Pleader opposed the writ petition. The JCB of the petitioner was seized when it was found converting a land which is classified as paddy land in Revenue records, pointed out the Government Pleader. Though the land in question is not included in the Data Bank, the Agricultural Officer was instructed to notify and include the said land in the Data Bank. The Kollam Sub Collector had already rejected an application for changing the nature of the said land in Revenue records. 9. Without obtaining any permit or authorisation, as many as 15 loads of earth were deposited in the land, stated the Government Pleader. The land has been illegally converted. Therefore, the landlord was directed to restore the land to its original position. The petitioner’s JCB was used for the illegal conversion. All procedural requirements were met and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, before passing Ext.P6 order. The confiscation of the JCB of the petitioner is amply justified, urged the Government Pleader. Therefore, the landlord was directed to restore the land to its original position. The petitioner’s JCB was used for the illegal conversion. All procedural requirements were met and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, before passing Ext.P6 order. The confiscation of the JCB of the petitioner is amply justified, urged the Government Pleader. 10. As regards legal justification, the Senior Government Pleader pointed out that Section 19 empowers designated/authorised officers of the Revenue Department/Police Officers to seize any vehicle or machinery used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 2008. The District Collector is empowered to confiscate the vehicle. 11. Section 2(i) defines the term “change of nature of unnotified land” to mean such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. Filling up of the land in question using the petitioner’s JCB, by dumping 15 loads of earth, amounts to change of nature of the unnotified land. The seizure of the JCB and consequential confiscation is therefore perfectly legal and justified, contended the Government Pleader. 12. As regards the judgments of this Court in Sabu T.K. (supra) and Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt.) Limited (supra), the Government Pleader argued that those judgments were delivered prior to the amendment to the Act, 2008 introducing Section 27A. It is the Amendment Act 29 of 2018 made with effect from 30.12.2017, which prohibits illegal change of nature of unnotified land. The afore judgments therefore are of no avail to the petitioner, contended the Government Pleader. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 14. The legality of seizure and confiscation of the petitioner’s JCB Excavator is the issue to be decided. Material facts are not very much in dispute. The JCB let out by the petitioner was found in the land in question, in Clappana Village on 19.03.2022. According to the petitioner, the JCB was deployed to clear the bushes in the land. The respondents would state that the JCB was found used to change the nature of the land. 15. Material facts are not very much in dispute. The JCB let out by the petitioner was found in the land in question, in Clappana Village on 19.03.2022. According to the petitioner, the JCB was deployed to clear the bushes in the land. The respondents would state that the JCB was found used to change the nature of the land. 15. The land is not a notified land and is not included in the Data Bank, though the respondents would contend that the Agricultural Officer concerned had already been directed to take steps to include the land in the Data Bank. The JCB was seized by the Village Officer. It was confiscated by the District Collector after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, with an option to pay in lieu of confiscation. 16. Section 19(1) of the Act, 2008 empowers any officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Village Officer or any officer authorised by the Government in this behalf or any police officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector, with a view to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the Act, to enter and search any premises and seize any vessel, vehicle or any other conveyance or any clay, sand, earth, etc., removed from the paddy land or wetland or any brick, tile made of all or any of them or machinery used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The question is whether the petitioner's JCB has been used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 17. Section 3(1) of the Act, 2008 reads as follows: 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. The prohibition under Section 3(1) obviously is against conversion or reclamation of paddy land, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner’s land admittedly is not a paddy land as defined under Section 2(xii). 18. The prohibition under Section 3(1) obviously is against conversion or reclamation of paddy land, except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The petitioner’s land admittedly is not a paddy land as defined under Section 2(xii). 18. Section 11 of the Act, 2008 mandates that the wetlands of the State shall be maintained as such and there shall be a total prohibition on reclamation of such wetland and removal of sand therefrom. The property in question in this case does not fall within the definition of wetland under Section 2(xviii) of the Act, 2008. Therefore, no offence is made out under Section 3 or Section 11, in the case of the land in issue in this writ petition. 19. The contention of the respondents is that Section 27A incorporated in the Act, 2008 as per the Amendment Act 29 of 2018 provides that if any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission. By attempting to convert the unnotified land (for which the petitioner’s JCB was used) without permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the owner of the land has violated Section 27A. It is an activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act, as envisaged in Section 19. 20. The Senior Government Pleader would rely on Section 2(i) of the Act, 2008 which defines the term “Change of nature of unnotified land” to mean such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. 21. Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 reads as follows: 27A. Change of nature of unnotified land - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed. Change of nature of unnotified land - (1) If any owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, he shall apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or Tribunal or any other authority, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, after considering the reports of the Village Officer concerned, pass such orders as deemed fit and proper on such applications, ensuring that there is no disruption to the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, through such water conservancy measures as is deemed necessary: Provided that, the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (3) If the application is allowed, the applicant shall be liable to pay a fee at such rate as may prescribed: Provided that, no such fee shall be collected if the applicant proves that the land where the application is allowed is, filled up or naturally filled up before the 4th day of July, 1967, the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, after completing such procedure, as may be prescribed. (4) If the application is allowed, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall ensure that the reclamation of the unnotified land shall not adversely affect the cultivation of paddy or any other crops, if any, in the adjoining land and shall specify such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure such cultivation: Provided that in specifying such water conservancy measures, the Revenue Divisional Officer may, if he deems fit, refer to satellite maps of the area maintained by Government agencies. (5) No permission under this section shall be necessary where the purpose for which the unnotified land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilized or attempted to be utilized is for paddy cultivation. (5) No permission under this section shall be necessary where the purpose for which the unnotified land is converted or attempted to be converted or utilized or attempted to be utilized is for paddy cultivation. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994) or in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994), no permission under this section shall be necessary for constructing a residential building having a maximum area of 120 square meters in a maximum extent of 4.04 ares of land or a commercial building having a maximum area of 40 square meters in a maximum extent of 2.02 ares of land: Provided that the construction of a housing complex or complexes or flats or multistoried residential complexes shall not come within the meaning of residential building specified in this subsection: Provided further that this exemption shall be granted only once. (7) The exemption under sub-section (6) shall be applicable only to owners of unnotified lands under the Kerala Conservaion of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018: Provided that if the area of the residential building or commercial building exempted under sub-section (6) is subsequently increased by new extension, the exemption under sub-section (6) shall cease to have effect and the owner of the land as on the date of detection of the new extension shall be liable to pay fee as per sub-section (3). (8) Where conversion of an unnotified land is required for any public purpose, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall submit a report to Government outlining the measures to be adopted to ensure that the reclamation shall not disrupt the free flow of water to the neighbouring paddy lands, if any, and shall suggest such water conservancy measures as is necessary to ensure this. (9) The Government may, on receipt of a report under sub-section (8), issue permission to reclaim unnotified land for public purpose: Provided that where permission is granted, the Government may make necessary modifications to the recommendations of the Revenue Divisional Officer as deemed fit: Provided further that, if the area of such parcel of land where the application is allowed is more than 20.2 Ares, ten per cent of such land shall be set apart for water conservancy measures. (10) The order issued under sub-section (2) and (9) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the lands and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded, the extent of the land in which water conservancy measures are to be adopted by the applicant and a sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order. (11) The Revenue Divisional Officer may, either suo motu or on the application of any aggrieved party, cancel any order issued under sub-section (2) if the conditions specified in the order issued therein are not complied by the applicant, either fully or partially. (12) No order of cancellation under subsection (11) shall be made by the Revenue Divisional Officer unless the applicant thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (13) Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A close reading of Section 27A(1) would show that permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer is required under Section 27A(1) only if the owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose. 22. Section 2(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 reads as follows: 2(i) “Change of nature of unnotified land” means such act or series of acts whereby the nature of an unnotified land is changed or has been changed irreversibly and in such a manner that it cannot be reverted back to the original condition by ordinary means. Though the term ‘change of nature of unnotified land’ is defined to mean acts or series of acts whereby the nature of unnotified land is changed or has been changed, the ‘change of nature of land’ per se is neither made an offence under the Act, 2008 nor is there absolute prohibition on change of nature of unnotified land. The limited regulatory measures in respect of unnotified lands are contained in Sections 27A, 27B and 27C of the Act, 2008. 23. While Section 27B provides for appellate mechanism, Section 27C deals with change of records. The limited regulatory measures in respect of unnotified lands are contained in Sections 27A, 27B and 27C of the Act, 2008. 23. While Section 27B provides for appellate mechanism, Section 27C deals with change of records. Section 27A mandates that permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer is required under Section 27A(1) if the owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose. If the owner of an unnotified land does any activity in the land, without he having any intention to utilise the land for residential, commercial or other purpose, permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer will not be required for such activity. 24. However, it is to be noted that under Section 2(i), the term 'change of nature of land' is defined to include not only any single act resulting in change of nature of the land, but series of acts also, whereby the nature of the land is changed irreversibly. Taking into account the laudable objects of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the respondents may be justified in treating even a single act of the land owner forming part of or can be treated as forming part of series of acts, as an act intended to change the nature of a land, provided such act can, with considerable amount of certainty, be treated as part of series of act aimed at changing the nature of land. 25. But, in the case of the land in issue in the present writ petition, though the land is described as paddy land in Revenue records, it, in fact, is a garden land. This conclusion is based on the findings in Ext.P6 itself that there are standing trees in the property and due to the fact that the land is not included in the Data Bank of paddy land/wetland yet. 26. Now, if a particular unnotified land is a garden land (though it is described as paddy land/wetland in Revenue records) and the land owner desires to use the land as garden land in a more profitable way by levelling the land or by importing red earth/ordinary earth in the unnotified land, can one allege that the nature of the land is changed due to such activity and the land owner has violated Section 27A as he has not obtained permission of Revenue Divisional Officer? To take yet another situation, if the unnotified land is being used as a playground and the land owner is laying a sports turf in the land, can one allege that Section 27A is violated? 27. Such instances cannot be treated as violation of Section 27A for want of permission of Revenue Divisional Officer for the reason that Section 27A mandates permission of Revenue Divisional Officer only if the owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose. The term 'other purpose' appearing in Section 27A can only mean any purpose other than the purpose for which the unnotified land is/was being used as on 30.12.2017, with effect from which date Section 27A was inserted in the Act, 2008. Attribution of any other meaning to Section 27A or the term 'other purposes' would only create absolute clog on the user of the land, which is not contemplated by the Act, 2008 and which will not be in public interest. 28. For the afore reasons, it is declared that permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A is necessary only if owner of an unnotified land desires to utilise such land for residential or commercial or for other purpose, than one for which the unnotified land was used as on 30.12.2017. It is therefore held that if an unnotified land is used for residential or commercial purpose as on 30.12.2017, no permission of Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 27A would be required if the owner of the land carries out any activity relating to the residential or commercial purpose as the case may be, for the reason that by such activity, there is no resultant 'change of nature of unnotified land' as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act, 2008. 29. In the case of the petitioner, the land owner concerned is alleged to have deposited 15 loads of earth in his land, which admittedly is an unnotified land and is a garden land with standing trees. The act of the land owner in unloading or depositing ordinary earth/black earth in his unnotified land which is used as a garden land without the permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot be treated as violation of Section 27A for the reason that the land owner has not used the land for residential or commercial or for other purpose. The act of the land owner in unloading or depositing ordinary earth/black earth in his unnotified land which is used as a garden land without the permission of the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot be treated as violation of Section 27A for the reason that the land owner has not used the land for residential or commercial or for other purpose. The seizure and confiscation of the petitioner's JCB Excavator is therefore illegal. For the facts and reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to give custody of JCB Excavator bearing registration No.KL-23U-6043 to the petitioner forthwith.