Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1343 (KER)

Thankaraj S/o Nallasami v. State of Kerala

2025-05-22

C.S.DIAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : C.S.DIAS, J. What is the procedure to confiscate a vehicle under Section 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 24.06.2023, 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 (2 nd respondent) that the excavator was seized from a property that is classified as paddy land and included in the data bank. The 2 nd 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 2 nd respondent has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 44,85,000/-, 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 2 nd respondent has filed a statement contending that the excavator was used to illegally convert a paddy land. The Sub Collector and the 5 th respondent have confirmed that the paddy land was illegally converted by using the excavator. The 2 nd respondent issued notice to the petitioner, heard him, fixed the value of the excavator at Rs.29,90,000/-, 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. 4. Heard, Sri. P. Deepak, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa. V., the learned Government Pleader. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, and contended that the procedure adopted by the 2 nd respondent in passing the impugned order is illegal and irregular. The 2 nd respondent has placed the cart before the horse. The petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing, and the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind. Section 20 mandates the 2 nd respondent to first consider whether the confiscation proceeding has to be initiated. The 2 nd respondent has placed the cart before the horse. The petitioner was not afforded a proper hearing, and the impugned order has been passed without any application of mind. Section 20 mandates the 2 nd respondent to first consider whether the confiscation proceeding has to be initiated. If he is satisfied to proceed with the confiscation, he should have, after hearing the petitioner, passed a consolidated order with reasons, by giving the petitioner the option to pay one and a half times the value of the excavator, in lieu of confiscation, and failing which, ordered the confiscation of the excavator. Instead, the 2 nd respondent has pre-judged the matter by issuing Ext.P6 show cause notice directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 44,85,000/- and, thereafter, has passed the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala and others v. Navaru Swapna Reddy ( 2022 (1) KLT 731 ) to fortify his contention. He prayed that the impugned order may be quashed. 6. The learned Government Pleader defended the impugned order. She contended that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. By Ext.P6 show cause notice, the petitioner was granted an opportunity to pay one and a half times the value of the excavator before passing the confiscation order. There is no irregularity in the proceeding. She relied on sub-section (3) of Section 20 and contended that, an order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall not be made invalid merely for the reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2) of Section 20, if the provisions of the Act have been substantially complied with. She prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. The petitioner's contention is that, the 2 nd respondent has passed Ext.P4 order in flagrant violation of Section 20 of the Act. It is apposite to refer to Section 20, which reads as follows: “ 20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle, etc. She prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. The petitioner's contention is that, the 2 nd respondent has passed Ext.P4 order in flagrant violation of Section 20 of the Act. It is apposite to refer to Section 20, which reads as follows: “ 20. Confiscation of vessel, vehicle, etc. (1) After obtaining a report regarding seizure under Section 12 or Section 19, the 1[District Collector] may, if he thinks fit, order confiscation of the object seized: Provided that the owner or the person in custody of the same, shall be given an option to pay, in lieu of its confiscation, a sum equal to one and a half times the value of the seized articles, as may be determined by the District Collector. 2[Provided further that the District Collector may take any action, in such manner as may be prescribed, to dispose the seized clay, sand, earth, brick, tile etc. and cause to remit the sums collected to the Fund.] (2) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be made by the District Collector unless the owner thereof has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. (3) No order of confiscation under sub-section (1) shall be invalid merely by reason of any defect or irregularity in the notice given under sub-section (2), if the provisions have been substantially complied with.” 8. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act demonstrates that, upon receiving a report of seizure, either under Section 12 or 19, the District Collector is obligated to examine whether the circumstances justify the confiscation of the seized object. On being objectively satisfied that the confiscation is warranted, the District Collector has to issue a notice to the owner of the object, afford him an opportunity of being heard, and then pass a composite order of confiscation, granting the owner the option to pay a sum equivalent to one and a half times of the value of the seized object, as determined by him. The order must further direct that, in the event of failure of the owner to remit the ordered amount, the seized object will stand confiscated. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was duly served with notice, he filed his objections, and he was heard by the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 20 was complied with. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was duly served with notice, he filed his objections, and he was heard by the 2 nd respondent. Therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 20 was complied with. Nonetheless, the infirmity in the procedure adopted by the 2 nd respondent lies in issuing Ext.P6 show cause notice, directing the petitioner to remit one and a half times the value of the excavator before the passing of the confiscation order, This by itself substantiates that the District Collector has pre-judged the issue. The procedure followed by the 2 nd respondent is untenable and not envisaged under the Act. Hence, I am satisfied that the impugned order is liable to be quashed, and the 2 nd respondent be directed to reconsider the matter afresh as per the framework of the Act. 10. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the excavator was seized by the respondents on 24.6.2023. For the last two years, the excavator has been left exposed to the vagaries of nature. The excavator is getting rusted and ruined, and its value is depreciating day by day. Therefore, subject to the outcome of the confiscation proceeding, the interim custody of the excavator may be granted to the petitioner on such conditions fixed by this Court. I find the said submission to be reasonable and justifiable. In the above conspectus, I allow the writ petition in the following manner: (i) Ext.P4 order is quashed. (ii) The 2 respondent is directed to consider the nd matter afresh, i.e., from the stage after hearing the petitioner, and pass orders in accordance with the law. (iii) The authorised officer of the respondents is directed to grant interim custody of the excavator to the petitioner, on him executing a bond in favour of the 2 respondent for Rs.44,85,000/- with two sureties nd for the like sum, and with an additional condition that the petitioner shall not transfer, sell or diminish the value of excavator, and use it only for lawful purposes. Needless to mention that, the bond shall have a charge over the properties of the petitioner and his sureties. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.