IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10086 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RADHAKRISHNAN.T.K, S/O.KRISHNAN, THACHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MADAVAKKARA, CHITTISSERY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PIN-680 001. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 651. SR.GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 10087 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................... W.P.(C)s.10086 & 10087 of 2011 ....................... Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by seizure of vehicles bearing No.KL- 08Y/9743 and KL-45/8371 by the second respondent alleging involvement in an offence under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Ext.P1 is the seizure mahazar which is followed by Ext.P2 report filed by the second respondent before the District Collector. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the property concerned is not at all a paddy land, as discernible from the certificates issued by the Village Officer as well as the Agricultural Officer, produced as Exts.P3 and P4 respectively. In Ext.P3 possession certificate issued by the Village Officer on 15.3.2011, the property concerned which is comprised in survey No.395/1 is described as 'purayidam'. In Ext.P4, concerned Agricultural Officer has certified that the W.P.(C).10086 & 10087/11 2 property comprising in Survey No.395/1 does not come within the purview of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. With reference to the said documents, the petitioners contend that the observation made by the second respondent in Ext.P2 mahazar is wrong and perverse, which makes entire proceedings null and void. 3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that this is a matter which is to be looked into and finalised by the second respondent, and that there is no objection in granting the second relief as sought for. 4. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that there is considerable force in the submissions made on the part of the petitioners and that the observation made by the second respondent in Ext.P1 mahazar with reference to the property W.P.(C).10086 & 10087/11 3 comprised in survey No.395/1 may not be correct at all. In any view of the matter, since the proceedings are pending before the second respondent, the said respondent is directed to consider and pass final orders in the proceedings pending before him within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The interim custody of the vehicles shall be released to the petitioners immediately on satisfaction of a bond to be executed by the petitioners regarding the liability, if any, within three days. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs