IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 20TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3203 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CHANDRASEKHARAN, KRISHNALAYAM, KADAVOOR,KARIPPUZHA P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. TAHASILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, HARIPAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI P N SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NOS. 3204 & 3325 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.3203, 3204 & 3325 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT In all these cases the petitioners are aggrieved by the seizure of the respective vehicles namely Tipper lorry in W.P.(C) No.3203 of 2010, Excavator in W.P.(C)No.3204 of 2010 and Lorry in W.P.(C)No.3325 of 2010 having registration Nos.KL 6D 3224, KL 16 9973, KL 03 M 430. 2. It is the common case of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the second respondent in seizing the vehicles are clearly in violation of the relevant provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,2008. It is pointed out that the power of seizure is conferred under Section 19 only on an officer not below the rank of a Revenue Divisional Officer or any officer appointed by the Government in that behalf or any police officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector. It is alleged that the seizure is in violation of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners thus seek release of their vehicles pending further orders to be passed by the District Collector in the matter. 3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions W.P.(C)Nos.3203, 3204 & 3325 of 2010 2 submitted that already final orders have been passed by the District Collector under Section 20 by ordering confiscation of the vehicles. Under Section 21 of the Act any person aggrieved by an order of Confiscation under Section 20 will have to file an appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area, within 30 days from the date of communication of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of the petitioners have received copies of the final orders passed by the District Collector and they were not actually heard in the matter. Therefore the petitioners can approach the District Collector for the copies of the respective orders. The same will be supplied forthwith for enabling the petitioners to file an appeal before the District Court concerned. Regarding the prayer to grant interim custody of the vehicles the petitioners will have to file appropriate interlocutory application in the appeal, and the same will be considered in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are closed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj