Jayachandran v. State of Kerala and others

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-07-08
Court Decision / Holding: In WP(C) Nos. 9135/2021 and 9168/2021, Ext.P10 orders are set aside. The 2nd respondent (District Collector) is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the petitioner’s contentions regarding the unloading place and the land’s nature; WP(C) No. 9168/2021 is disposed of directing the release application to be reconsidered in the light of the Amity Rock Products judgment. Orders are to be passed within six weeks. The petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of by common judgment; Ext.P10 set aside; directions to reconsider; six weeks deadline for fresh orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jayachandran

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary and Agricultural Production Commissioner, Department of Agriculture, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695 001
District Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam 686 002
Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, Kottayam 686 575
Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Vaikom 686 141
Village Officer, Naduvila Village, Vaikom, Kottayam 686 141
Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Vaikom 686 141
Station House Officer, Vaikom Police Station, Vaikom 686 141

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• L. Rajesh Narayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Manu Raj

Case Synopsis & Summary

These two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 9135/2021 and 9168/2021, arise from seizure of two Tata tipper lorries owned by the petitioner and his son on 15 January 2020 in Naduvila village, Vaikom Taluk, for allegedly using ordinary earth to reclaim land under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner contends no offence was committed and that the lorries were not used to reclaim land; a portion of the land where earth was unloaded is shown to be nilam or garden land per the Data Bank, and photographs have been produced to prove the unloading location was not in a prohibited area. The District Collector reportedly rejected applications for release, and the seizure and detention are alleged to be illegal. The Government Pleader maintains the facts are disputed and require factual inquiry, precluding a decision in writ proceedings. The court, noting disputed facts, directs adverting to the specific contentions about unloading location and land type and requires competent authorities to reach a proper conclusion. In WP9168/2021, the court also considers the Amity Rock Products v. District Collector judgment and directs the authorities to decide the release application in light of Amity Rock Products. Ext.P10 orders are set aside, with a six-week deadline for fresh decisions. Overall, the petitions are disposed by a common judgment rendered by Justice N. Nagareesh.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner submits that the vehicles were not used to reclaim land and that unloading of ordinary earth occurred along the road, not in a prohibited nilam area; part of the land is nilam and another part is garden land according to the Data Bank; photographs support these assertions; the seizure and detention are therefore illegal and require release/prompt reconsideration by the authorities.

Contentions of Respondents

Government Pleader contends that the facts are disputed and require factual inquiry; writ court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact; authorities must conduct due enquiry and arrive at a proper conclusion about the unloading location and land classification; reliance on the Data Bank and the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act is appropriate.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Amity Rock Products v. District Collector	2021(2) KLT 32	Positive	The court cites and applies the Amity Rock Products principle to guide the assessment of whether ordinary earth was unloaded in a paddy land or a converted land and directs reconsideration accordingly.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH ] DAY OF JULY 2021/17TH ASHADHA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 9135 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MURUGAN H), PERUVA, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM 686 610.** ## **BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** **2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 002.** **3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575.** **4. TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM 686 141.** **5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILA VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM 686 141.** **6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VAIKOM - 686 141.** **7. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM - 686 141.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.9168/2021 ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 2 : ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **THURSDAY, THE 8[TH ] DAY OF JULY 2021/17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 9168 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** **JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, MURUGAN (H), PERUVA, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686610.** ## **BY ADV L.RAJESH NARAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002.** **3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 575.** **4. TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM-686 141.** **5. VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM-686 141.** **6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VAIKOM-686 141.** **7. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM-686141.** ## **GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.9135/2021 ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 8[th] day of July, 2021 These writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner, relates to same set of facts and contain similar prayers. Hence they are heard together and being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The petitioner’s son owns a TATA Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KL-04-T-6280. The petitioner is the owner of another TATA Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KL17-5108. On 15.01.2020, both the lorries were seized on an allegation that the lorries were deployed to reclaim land of one Jayapradeep situated near Kaniyamthode - Perumchila road in Naduvila village, Vaikom Taluk, using ordinary earth, violating the provisions of Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 3. The petitioner submits that he was oblivious of the fact that the land of the said Jayapradeep was one WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 4 : included in the land Data Bank prepared under the provisions of Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The vehicles were not used for reclamation of any land. The petitioner submitted applications seeking to release the vehicles since those were not used to commit any offence under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The applications were however rejected by the District Collector. The seizure of the lorries and their continued detention, are illegal and arbitrary, contended the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader opposed the writ petitions and denied all material allegations made therein. The learned Government Pleader argued that the facts involved in the writ petitions are disputed questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate the issue at this stage and the proceedings initiated by the statutory authorities will have to arrive at proper conclusion after due enquiry. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 5 : 6. In these cases as far as vehicle bearing registration No.KL-04-T-6280 is concerned, the petitioner’s case is that the ordinary earth was unloaded on the side of the road and not in any compound which can be described as 'nilam'. The petitioner had produced photographs in proof of the said fact. Further more, it is an admitted fact that a part of the land where the ordinary earth is allegedly intended to be used is 'nilam' and another part falls under the category of garden land as per the Data Bank. 7. If the ordinary earth was intended to be used in a garden land, no prosecution will be maintainable, as against the owner of the lorry, in which case seizure of the vehicle will be illegal. However, this being a disputed question of fact a proper conclusion has to be arrived at by competent authority. Going through Ext.P10 order, it is clear that the specific contentions of the petitioner relating to the place of unloading ordinary earth, supported by the photographs produced by the petitioner, was not appropriately considered by the 2[nd] respondent. A proper conclusion as to the nature of the land WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 6 : where the ordinary earth was allegedly intended to be downloaded, has to be arrived at. 8. In the case of vehicle bearing No.KL-17-5108, the contention of the petitioner is that the law laid down by this Court in the judgment in **Amity Rock Products v. District Collector** [2021(2) KLT 32] would apply to the facts in this case. Seizure of vehicle can be effected only when ordinary earth is unloaded in a paddy land. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would distinguish the facts of **Amity Rock Products** (supra) pointing out that in the said case, the ordinary earth was unloaded in a converted land. Though the applicability of the said judgment is disputed, this Court is of the opinion that the authority ought to have ascertained the nature of the land where the ordinary earth was unloaded. 9. In view of the afore facts, in WP(C) No.9135/2021, Ext.P10 order of the 2[nd] respondent is set aside. The 2[nd] respondent is directed to reconsider the issue in the light of the specific contentions of the petitioner relating to the place of unloading of ordinary earth and the nature of the land WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 7 : where the ordinary earth is intended to be used. WP(C) No.9168/2021 is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the application of the petitioner for release of vehicle in the light of the judgment of this Court in **Amity Rock Products** (supra). To enable the 2[nd] respondent to reconsider the matter, Ext.P10 is set aside. In both the writ petitions, orders as directed above shall be passed within six weeks. The writ petitions are disposed as above. Sd/- **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** ncd/08.07.2021 WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9135/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF** **THE** **CERTIFICATE** **OF**| |---|---| ||**REGISTRATION.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT DATED**| ||**27.5.17.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PASS DATED 15.1.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED**| ||**15.1.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT DATED 18.1.2020 OF**| ||**THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR**| ||**SEIZURE DATED 15.1.2020.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING**| ||**NO.L2-305/2019.**| |**EXHIBIT P8 **|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA**| ||**BANK.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING**| ||**NO.D.C.K.T.M/2689/2020-R4 DATED 16.2.2021.**| WP(C) Nos. 9135 & 9168 of 2021 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9168/2021** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF** **THE**|**CERTIFICATE** **OF**| |---|---|---| ||**REGISTRATION.**|| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**GOODS CARRIAGE PERMIT**| ||**DATED 13/05/2016.**|| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PASS DATED 15/01/2020.**|| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**SEIZURE MAHAZAR DATED**| ||**15/01/2020.**|| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF** **THE**|**REPORT** **DATED**| ||**18/01/2019OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR**| ||**SEIZURE DATED 15/01/2020.**|| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE**|**COMMUNICATION BEARING**| ||**NO.L2-305/2019.**|| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA**|| ||**BANK.**|| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20/2/2020**|| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD**|| ||**RESPINDENT.**|| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.D.C.K.T.M/**|| ||**2689/2020-R4 DATED**|**16.2.2021.**|