Law Needs Amendment, Land Owners Must Be Imposed With Liability In Cases Of Illegal Reclamation Of Paddy Land: Kerala High Court Remarks

The Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ appeal preferred by the owner of a JCB excavator seeking to get interim custody over his vehicle, which was rented to a landowner to dig a wastewater pit. After hearing the parties, the Court reserved its verdict. 

The extractor was confiscated per Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for allegedly being used to illegally reclaim a paddy land.

The Court had earlier opined that in cases of reclamation of paddy land in contravention of the provisions of the Act, the law treats the vehicle owner more harshly than the land owners.

The Bench orally opined that since this was a quasi-criminal proceeding before the District Collector, mens rea is an important element and vehicle owner renting his vehicle would not even be aware of the nature of the land on which his vehicle is being used.

Referring to Section 20, it orally observed that the legislation when it contemplated confiscation, only the land owner's vehicle was considered. A situation where somebody else's vehicle would be hired and used was never thought of. The Court opined that the law is quite weak in this aspect since it was made to catch the land owner but it is the vehicle owner who ends up losing. It, thus, felt that the law has to be amended to impose greater liability on the landowner.

It noticed that the only remedy available to the vehicle owner to get back his vehicle is to pay a sum equal to 1.5 times the value of the seized object in lieu of the confiscation. Then, the only way to get this amount from the land owner is to approach a civil court by filing a suit.

It orally remarked, “the vehicle owner would not be going there after looking at the databank… It's a depravation of one's property, which is protected by Article 300A [of the Constitution]. It can be only through a fair procedure…”

It also orally stated that there should be an in-built mechanism to prove the innocence of the vehicle owner in such cases.

“There should be an in-built mechanism to prove his innocence… When it is quasi-criminal proceeding, what is his role? Active role, passive role? Because of the weakness of the provision… Law is to be revisited for liability to be cast on the land owner,” the Bench orally opined.

The Court also noted that proportionality principle is another issue in similar cases where the vehicle/object confiscated is smaller, like a trolley.

It orally observed:

“Proportionality is an issue. Confiscation is an issue. That is the reason we have not fixed responsibility on the land owner…Owner's liability has to be decided. Confiscation can be released by creating obligation on the land or on payment. Whichever the vehicle is used, can be confiscated, it can be released either burdening on the land or on payment.”

Thereafter, the Court reserved the matter for passing orders.

Petition is moved by Advocates Krishna Prasad S., Sindhu S. Kamath, Swapna S.K., Rohini Nair, Suraj Kumar D., Sunilkumar K.K., and A. Karthika Sivan.

Case No: W.A. No. 2448 of 2025

Case Title: Venugopalan C. v. The Tahsildar and Ors.