Law Harsher Against Vehicle Owner Than Land Owner In Cases Of Illegal Reclamation Of Paddy Land: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in cases of reclamation of paddy land in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the law treats the vehicle owner more harshly than the land owners.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisanka V. Menon was considering an appeal preferred by the owner of a JCB excavator seeking to get interim custody over his vehicle, which was confiscated as per Section 20.
According to Section 20, the Collector may order confiscation of an object after obtaining seizure report under Section 12 or Section 19 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the owner. The owner is given an option to pay a sum equal to 1.5 times the value of the seized object in lieu of the confiscation.
Sections 12 and 19 give power to an Authorised officer/other officers to seize an object used or deemed to have been used for an activity in contravention of the Act.
The Court observed:
“We find that the law is quite harsh on the owner of the JCB excavator. It results in confiscation of the vehicles used for reclaiming paddy land, and the owner of the land who engaged the driver or owner of the vehicle has no legal obligations under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').”
In the present case, the appellant had rented his JCB excavator to a landowner for digging a wastewater pit in his property. The landowner had told the appellant that the property was a dry land. The next day, the Village Officer directed the driver to bring it to the Tahsildar's office and the appellant was told that his vehicle was seized.
The respondents did not permit release of the excavator as requested by the appellant. Subsequently, a confiscation order was passed and the appellant was directed to deposit around 32 lakhs to get his vehicle released. A writ petition, WP(C) No. 16627 of 2025, was preferred challenging the same.
The Single Judge observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity of hearing and set aside the order directing confiscation. It also directed that the matter has to be considered afresh after hearing the appellant and to defer coercive proceedings against the vehicle.
The appellant made a case that his vehicle was exposed to the vagaries of nature and sought for its release in the writ appeal.
The Division Bench stayed the operation of the judgment of the Single Judge and ordered for the interim release of the excavator on conditions. It also made it clear that the vehicle is to be surrendered if the Court passes an order to that effect and told the appellant that he cannot alienate the vehicle without the Court's permission.
The Court also happened to consider the liabilities of the land owner in similar circumstances.
“We had to examine the vicarious liability of the owner of the land. He can go scot-free, merely restoring the land in its original position as referred to in Section 13 of the Act…We are looking at an angle where the owner of the land can be proceeded against for the value of the vehicle under Section 20 of the Act, especially in this case, as the owner of the land had admitted that the paddy land was reclaimed without obtaining any permission.”
It suo motu impleaded the three land owners in the appeal and further, gave direction to the District Collector to proceed against the land owners under Section 13 of the Act. The report of compliance was also asked to be produced before the next posting date.
The case is posted on October 28 (Tuesday).
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.