High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; release of vehicle; Ext....

Surendran v. The District Collector, Kozhikode & The Tahsildar, Kozhikode

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 3133 of 2013 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
Judgment Date
2015-01-05
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition allowed. Ext.P6 quashed. The vehicle is to be released to the petitioner without any further conditions. Formal orders to be issued within one month from receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; release of vehicle; Ext.P6 quashed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Surendran

Respondents

  • The District Collector, Kozhikode
  • The Tahsildar, Kozhikode

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. C. P. Peethambaran
  • • Smt. Mini V.A.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. R. Ranjith

Case Synopsis & Summary

Surendran, the registered owner of a goods vehicle KL-11/AG-5405, challenges a seizure under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The vehicle was seized on 25 December 2012 by the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode, for alleged unloading of red earth on land described as nilam in R.S. Nos. 51/1A and 1B of Kuruvattoor village, owned by Ushakumari, on the ground that it involved unauthorized reclamation of paddy land. The petitioner contends the land is a pucca garden land with coconut trees and improvements, and that the conversion of land occurred before the Act’s introduction, making the seizure and the consequent 1½ times value demand under Ext.P6 unwarranted. He argues that the revenue description alone cannot determine eligibility for the Act’s restrictions, and points to two houses adjacent to the site indicating that the area is not strictly wetland in current use. He relied on a prior interim directive in WP(C) No. 318/2013 (Ext.P4) to consider release, and challenged the 1st respondent’s order Ext.P6 demanding payment before release. The court, citing Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannoor Gramapanchayat, held that the Act must be applied on the actual facts on the ground rather than the surface description in revenue records. Finding the seizure illegal and the Ext.P6 demand unsustainable, the court allowed the petition and quashed Ext.P6, directing release of the vehicle.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 – Section 20

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Actual fact situation governs the applicability of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, and not merely the description of land in revenue records.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends the land is pucca garden land and not nilam; conversion occurred before the Act’s introduction, thus the seizure and the 1½ times value demand are unwarranted. Revenue description cannot decide applicability; internal photographs show coconut trees and improvements suggesting a garden land. He argues that Ext.P4 directed release in WP(C) No. 318/2013 should be considered and that Ext.P6’s monetary condition for release is excessive. The seizure itself is illegal in the view of the petitioner; the interim relief should be granted without coercive payment.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend the land was classified as nilam in revenue records and included in the data bank as paddy land; the vehicle was used for unauthorized conversion of paddy land, justifying seizure under Section 20. Ext.R1(a) and Ext.R1(b) support the seizure and the subsequent demand of 1.5 times the value as a condition for release; the petition is an attempt to circumvent the Act’s provisions.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Shahanaz Shukkoor v. Chelannoor Gramapanchayat2009 (3) KLT 899PositiveCited to establish that mere revenue-record description (nilam) cannot determine land use; actual facts govern the applicability of the Act.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Surendran v. The District Collector, Kozhikode & The Tahsildar, Kozhikode and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI** **MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/15TH POUSHA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 3133 of 2013 (N)** ## **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER :** **-----------------------** **SURENDRAN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUNNI NAIR, 'SURABHI', THACHERI THAZHATH HOUSE, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A.** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** ## **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE-673 001** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE-673 001** ## **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.RANJITH** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2014 , THE COURT ON 05-01-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **WP(C).NO.3133/2013** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG.NO.KL-11/AG-5405** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SEIZURE MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.12.2012** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LAND AND ALSO THE MATERIALS UNLOADED IN THE LAND** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.1.2013 IN WP(C)NO.318/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.1.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/1/2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK. EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE DATED 04/05/2013.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO.JUDGE** **sts** ## **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J. -------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 -------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of January, 2015** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is the registered owner of a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/AG-5405, has come up before this Court challenging the confiscation of his vehicle in a proceeding initiated under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”). 2. The petitioner's vehicle was seized by the 2[nd] respondent on 25.12.2012 alleging that the vehicle was used for unloading red earth in a property comprised in R.S.Nos.51/1A and 1B of Kuruvattoor Village, having an extent of 32 cents owned by one Ushakumari. According to the 2[nd] respondent, the vehicle was used for reclaiming paddy field in violation of the Act. According to the petitioner, though as a matter of fact, the revenue records describe the nature of land as 'nilam', it was a pacca garden land having several improvements and coconut W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** trees aged more than 15 years. The petitioner alleges that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the property, which has been converted prior to the introduction of the Act; and therefore, the very seizure itself is illegal. The petitioner further points out that there are two houses situated in the adjacent property, which are constructed after the introduction of the Act. The petitioner points out that his vehicle was taken on rent by a contractor and the petitioner was not involved in the offence as alleged. The petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No.318/2013, in which, this Court, by Ext.P4 judgment, directed the 1[st] respondent to consider the release of the vehicle as an interim measure within a period of two weeks from the date of application for claiming such release. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 application before the 1[st] respondent stating that he was innocent. The petitioner alleges that the 1[st] respondent, without considering the real nature of the land, disposed of Ext.P5 application by Ext.P6 order directing the W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 ..3.. petitioner to remit 7,27,500/-, being 1½ times value of₹ the seized vehicle, for interim custody. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court. 3. The 1[st] respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner's vehicle was engaged in illegal and unauthorized filling up of paddy land in R.S.No.52/1D of Kuruvattur Desom in Kuruvattur Village. According to the 1[st] respondent, this land was classified as 'nilam' in the revenue records and also included in the draft data bank prepared as per the Act. The 1[st] respondent has produced Ext.R1(a), which is the true copy of the relevant page of the Data Bank. The 1[st] respondent maintained the stand that as per Ext.R1(b) report of the Additional Tahsildar, Kozhikode, the vehicle was used for unauthorized conversion of paddy land; and therefore, the vehicle was seized and confiscated as per Section 20 of the Act. In compliance of the direction of this Court, Ext.P6 order was issued directing the petitioner to remit 7,27,500/- as 1½ times value of the₹ W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** said vehicle as reported by the Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode. Therefore, the 1[st] respondent justified the stand taken by them. 4. Arguments have been heard. 5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property, where the red soil has been unloaded, cannot be described as 'nilam'; and it is a pucca garden land. According to the petitioner, the conversion has taken place before the introduction of the Act; and therefore, the provisions of the Act cannot be invoked. It was further pointed out that the 1[st] respondent is not empowered to impose such a huge amount as a pre-condition for release of the vehicle as an interim measure. The petitioner produced Ext.P3 photographs, which would go to show that aged coconut trees are there in the property, where the red earth was unloaded. The specific case of the petitioner that the land is a reclaimed land, has not been denied by the respondents in the counter affidavit. On the other hand, they would contend W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** that mere presence of some coconut trees is not sufficient to prove that it is a pucca garden land. Their stand is that as per the draft data bank, it is a paddy land; and therefore, the vehicle was used for illegal conversion of the said paddy land. 6. This Court in **Shahanaz Shukkoor** v. **Chelannoor Gramapanchayat** [2009 (3) KLT 899] has held that mere description of an item of property as 'nilam' (paddy field or wet land) in revenue records is insufficient to assume that the land cannot be used for any purpose other than those, for which, a paddy field or wet land uses. This is because of the fact that the Act deals with the conservation of lands, which are wet lands and paddy fields, on the basis of actual fact situation and not depending on the description of property in revenue records. Viewed in that profile, it has to be held that the seizure on the basis of the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act itself is illegal. Moreover, as per Ext.R1(b), the red earth said to have been deposited in W.P.(C) No. 3133 of 2013 **==> picture [20 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the aforesaid property has been removed by the owner subsequently. Now, the District Collector, by Ext.P6 order directed the petitioner to remit a sum of ₹7,27,500/-, which is 1½ times value of the seized vehicle. As this Court is of the view that the seizure itself is illegal, the direction to remit the amount for release of the vehicle cannot be sustained. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner without imposing any further condition in the light of what has been stated above. Formal orders to this effect shall be issued within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- **A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE** bka/-