Vehicles Owned By Third-Party Contractors Can't Be Mechanically Confiscated Under Conservation Of Paddy Land Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that vehicles owned by third-party contractors cannot be mechanically confiscated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, unless there is a finding of knowledge or connivance in the illegal reclamation of paddy land.A Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon allowed a writ appeal filed by a JCB excavator owner whose vehicle had been confiscated for allegedly being used in unlawful reclamation of paddy land at Mananthavady in Wayanad district.The Court set aside the confiscation order passed by the District Collector, observing that the statutory discretion under Section 20 of the Act must be exercised fairly, particularly where the owner of the seized vehicle is not the landowner and there is no material to show awareness of the land's classification.The case arose from the confiscation of an excavator valued at over Rs. 32 lakh, which authorities claimed was used for illegal reclamation.The Court examined the order directing the confiscation of the excavator allegedly used for reclaiming paddy land. The Court observed that any act of conversion or reclamation of paddy land must be viewed with utmost seriousness but at the same time, the position of the JCB excavator owner must not be overlooked. The Court underscored the need to distinguish between the culpability of landowners and that of third-party contractors who merely provide machinery on hire.“The difficulty in the present case does not lie in interpreting the statute. Rather, the statute does not distinguish between the landowner who uses a vehicle or article for illegal reclamation and a third-party contractor who merely hires out his vehicle at the behest of the landowner.” Court noted. Interpreting Section 20 of the Act, which empowers the District Collector to order confiscation of vehicles used in contravention of the law, the Court stressed the significance of the word “may” in the provision. The Bench held that confiscation is not mandatory in every case and that the discretion granted by the statute must be meaningfully exercised.“The Legislature's intention in using the word “may” would indicate that not every seizure of an article or vehicle must result in confiscation.” Court noted. .The Court noted that while landowners face near-absolute liability under Section 3 of the Act, third-party vehicle owners fall within the realm of strict liability, where innocence may not negate the offence but can absolve them from the ultimate penalty of confiscation.“Innocence is not to exonerate from the act, but to absolve from the ultimate action of Section 20 of the Act. We state that it is based on the strict liability principle, a third party's responsibility would arise when he uses an article or vehicle for such conversion. The exoneration or impunity is not based on the innocence of the act, but to escape from the ultimate penalty of confiscation.” Court noted The Bench relied on State of Kerala v Sukumara Panicker [1987 (2) KLT 341] which dealt with confiscation under forest and environmental laws, and reiterated that proportionality arguments do not apply where culpability is established, but fairness must prevail where innocence is evident.The Court thus held that if the statutory provision provides for discretion, confiscation is not obligatory in all cases, and discretion should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances. The Court went on to note that neither the Village Officer's report, the Tahsildar's proceedings, nor the show-cause notice issued by the District Collector contained any allegation that the excavator owner had knowledge that the land was classified as paddy land in revenue records or the statutory data bank.“In the absence of any attribution of knowledge against the appellant, Venugopalan, the District Collector ought to have exercised the discretion in favour of the appellant to absolve him from the ultimate penalty being imposed on him.” Court held. The Court thus allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order against the appellant and directed the District Collector to proceed against the owner of the land in accordance with law. Case Title: Venugopalan C v The Tahsildar (Land Records)Case No: WA 2448/ 2025Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 846Counsel for Appellant: Krishna Prasad S, Sindhu S Kamath, Swapna S K, Rohini nair, Suraj Kumar D, Sunilkumar K K, A Karthika SivanCounsel for Respondent: P M Shameer, Anil Kumar K P, Mariyamma A K, Ipsita Ojal, Laya SimonClick Here To Read/ Download Judgment

Vehicles Owned By Third-Party Contractors Can't Be Mechanically Confiscated Under Conservation Of Paddy Land Act: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Vehicles Owned By Third-Party Contractors Can't Be Mechanically Confiscated Under Conservation Of Paddy Land Act: Kerala High Court

Anamika MJ

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers