IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2011 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32728 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.JAMEELA, AGED 38,W/O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, KOTTILANGAD HOUSE, RAVANESHWARAM, PITHARI VILLAGE P.O. RAVANESHWARAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH SMT.P.M.SHIJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD - 6711 21. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANAGAD - 671315. 3. THE ADDITIOAL TAHSILDAR, HOSDURG 671315, GP SMT. M.J.RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).32728/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD DT.20/11/2011. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD DT.3/12/2011. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32728/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 15th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be a registered owner of a tipper lorry bearing registration No.KL-60-C-1534. Proceedings were initiated against the vehicle on the allegation that it violated the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, (Act 28 of 2008). Accordingly, the vehicle was seized on 21.11.2011. The proceedings were concluded by Ext.P2 order compounding the offence on levying Rs.35,000/- on the vehicle. It is challenging the said proceedings, the writ petition is filed. 2. Under the aforesaid Act, the second respondent who issued Ext.P2 order, has no jurisdiction to initiate or conclude any proceedings. Apparently realizing the same, the learned Government Pleader seeks to justify Ext.P2 proceedings of the second respondent as a report made to the first respondent. However, the contents of Ext.P2 itself will belie that argument and therefore I am unable to accept the same. In that view of the matter, compounding the offence ordered by the second W.P.(C).32728/11 2 respondent on levying Rs.35,000/- as per Ext.P2 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 3. It is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, respondents will release the vehicle to the petitioner. However, such release of the vehicle shall not be the prejudice of the respondents to take fresh action against the vehicle complying with the provisions of Act 28 of 2008. writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs