Vehicle Cannot Be Seized Under Kerala Conservation Of Paddy Land Act Without Specific Allegation Of Use For Contravention: High Court
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that as per Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter, 'the Act, 2008'), a vehicle could be seized only when it is used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, explained that this was because seizure is a drastic power which...
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that as per Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter, 'the Act, 2008'), a vehicle could be seized only when it is used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, explained that this was because seizure is a drastic power which could be exercised only when conferred by the statute.
"Seizure of a vehicle interferes with the right of an owner to use his property in the manner he likes, subject, of course, to law. Since seizure interferes with proprietary rights, provisions conferring the power of seizure must be interpreted strictly. The safeguards and the stipulations provided by the statute for the exercise of such a power must also be strictly complied with," the Bench observed.
As per the case, the registered tipper lorry of the petitioner was seized by the Village Officer under Section 19 of the Act, 2008, alleging that the vehicle had been used for transporting earth for reclamation of a paddy land.
The petitioner contended that the seizure was illegal since the vehicle had been seized from a public road, and there was no soil in it.
Perusing Section 19 of the Act, 2008, the Court noted that the said provision could be invoked when a vehicle or other machinery is used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the statute. The Court further noted that the provision vests the power of seizure upon three categories of officers.
"The above safeguards provided by the statute ought to be interpreted strictly lest there be a misuse of the extraordinary power conferred upon the authorities under the Act. Therefore, unless the Officer seizing the vehicle is satisfied that such a vehicle was used or deemed to have been used for converting a paddy land, he cannot resort to the power of seizure," the Court observed.
The Court, upon perusing the mahazar, noted that the officer, while effecting seizure, had not observed that the vehicle had been used or deemed to have been used for contravening the provisions of the statute.
"The only observation as noticed from the mahazar is that he was satisfied ‘that there was contravention of the provisions of the Act, and hence, the vehicle is being taken into custody’. There is no whisper even that the vehicle was used or can be said to be deemed to have been used for contravening the provisions of the Act," the Court added.
The Court was thus of the considered view that no seizure could be effected in the absence of any specific allegation of the vehicle having been used for contravening the provisions of the statute.
It therefore held the seizure of the petitioner's lorry as contrary to the provisions of the Act, for having been carried out without authority, and directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner.
The plea was thus allowed.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Cibi Thomas, and Ansia K.A.
Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader Devishri R.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
Case Title: Siraj v. The District Collector & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 28419 OF 2023