The High Court of Kerala has addressed a scenario under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) involving the confiscation of a vehicle used in the illegal reclamation of paddy land, and the apparent disparity between the liability of the vehicle owner and the land-owner. The issue arose in a writ appeal brought by the owner of a JCB excavator that had been seized by the authorities under Section 20 of the Act, on the ground that the machine was used for reclaiming paddy land without the required permission. The appellant’s case was that he had leased the excavator to a land-owner for digging a wastewater pit, believing the land to be dry land; later it was claimed it was used for paddy-land reclamation and the vehicle was seized.
A Division Bench of the High Court observed that the vehicle owner faced far harsher consequences under Section 20 (which allows confiscation of the object and offers a path to retrieval by paying 1.5 times its value) whereas the land-owner, who had admitted that the reclamation was unauthorised and without permission, would only face the consequence under Section 13 of restoring the land to its original state. The Court emphasised the incongruity: "We find that the law is quite harsh on the owner of the JCB excavator … the owner of the land who engaged the driver or owner of the vehicle has no legal obligations under Section 20 of the Act.” The Bench stated it was “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 … as the owner of the land had admitted that the paddy land was reclaimed without obtaining any permission.”
The Court also granted the vehicle owner interim relief: it ordered interim release of the excavator subject to conditions (such as the vehicle not being alienated and being surrendered if ultimately ordered) while clarifying that seizure under the Act must satisfy the conditions prescribed (Sections 12 and 19) and that the owner must be afforded an opportunity of hearing. The Court thus underscored two important thrusts: first, that seizures and confiscations under the Act are drastic powers and must be exercised with procedural fairness; second, that the liability scheme under the Act may warrant reconsideration when it leads to disproportionate burdens on vehicle owners while land-owners seem to bear lighter obligations despite bearing primary responsibility for the illegal act.
In sum, the Kerala High Court’s ruling highlights the necessity for procedural safeguards in seizures under the Paddy Land Act, and flags the legislative imbalance whereby heavy penalties may fall on ancillary actors (vehicle owners) while the principal wrong-doer (land-owner) escapes equivalent sanction. The decision signals that courts may probe whether land-owners can be made liable under Section 20 in appropriate cases, and serves as a guide for authorities that they must ensure fair hearing and proportionality when invoking confiscation measures under the Act.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.