IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4304 of 2009(K) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ KOMALAMMA VIJAYAN, KOCHUCHERIYIL, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 4304 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-04- V/5002. On 3/2/2009, under Ext.P2 mahazar, the 2nd respondent in the presence of the 1st respondent seized the vehicle. Ext.P2 carries the signature of the 2nd respondent and also the witnesses. It is the seizure of the vehicle thus affected, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the seizure is without jurisdiction. Illustrating this, he referred me to Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Section 12 of the Act reads as under: Appointment of Authorized Officers and their Powers: (1) The Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer as authorized officers and may determine the area of jurisdiction within which they shall exercise their powers under this Act. (2) The Authorized Officer may, for the purpose of inspecting whether any of the provisions of this Act have been violated, or to prevent the commission of any of the offences under this Act,- (a) enter any premises or any place connected WPC 4304/09 :2 : therewith with such preparation as he thinks necessary for the inspection or investigation into the alleged offence under this Act; (b) require any person to stop any act in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11; (c) seize any vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or any implements used or purported to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act and send a report to the Collector for initiating proceedings for their confiscation; (d) require any person to furnish such information as he may consider necessary; (e) take photographs, make inventories or do their things necessary for collecting evidence regarding the commission of the offence and send a report to the Court of competent jurisdiction in order to prosecute the accused.” 4. A reading of the section shows that only an authorized officer can seize a vehicle as contemplated in Section 12 (2) (c). However 12(1) shows that the power of the Government to authorise an officer of the Revenue Department has to be only in respect of those officers who are not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. Evidently, Ext.P2 seizure mahazar shows that the same has been done by the 2nd respondent. From Section 12(1) since it is obvious that neither of the respondents could be Authorized Officers and for that reason, the seizure as per Ext.P2 cannot be upheld. WPC 4304/09 :3 : Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing the respondents to release the tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.KL- 04-V/5002 forthwith, on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp