LI Network
Published on: October 8, 2023 at 17:19 IST
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that, in accordance with Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’), the seizure of a vehicle is permissible only when it is used, or deemed to have been used, for an activity that contravenes the provisions of the Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas explained that such seizures are a significant exercise of power, only to be exercised when explicitly granted by statute.
“Seizing a vehicle interferes with the owner’s right to use their property as they see fit, within the bounds of the law. Given that seizure affects property rights, provisions granting seizure powers must be narrowly interpreted. The safeguards and requirements provided by the statute for exercising such power must also be strictly adhered to,” the Bench remarked.
In this particular case, the petitioner’s registered tipper lorry was seized by the Village Officer under Section 19 of the Act, 2008. The seizure was made on the grounds that the vehicle had been utilized to transport earth for reclaiming a paddy field.
The petitioner argued that the seizure was unlawful since it occurred on a public road and the vehicle did not contain any soil.
Upon reviewing Section 19 of the Act, 2008, the Court found that this provision could only be invoked when a vehicle or other machinery is used or considered to have been used for an activity that contravenes the statute’s provisions.
The Court also noted that the power to seize is vested in three categories of officers under the provision.
“The statutory safeguards provided should be interpreted strictly to prevent misuse of the extraordinary power granted to authorities under the Act. Therefore, unless the seizing officer is satisfied that the vehicle was used or deemed to have been used for converting a paddy field, they cannot exercise the power of seizure,” the Court emphasized.
Upon examining the mahazar (seizure document), the Court observed that the officer had not stated that the vehicle had been used or considered to have been used for contravening the statute’s provisions while carrying out the seizure.
“The only observation in the mahazar is that the officer was satisfied ‘that there was contravention of the provisions of the Act, and hence, the vehicle is being taken into custody.’ There is no mention that the vehicle was used or could be considered to have been used to contravene the Act’s provisions,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the seizure of the petitioner’s lorry was contrary to the Act’s provisions as it was carried out without proper authority. It ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner, allowing the plea.
