IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4994 of 2011(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.P.POULOSE, S/O.THOMAS, P/530, KANNAMPURAM HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM, NJARALLOOR, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. 2. NAVAS.K.M., MAKKAR, 8/227, KOLLAMKUDI HOUSE, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SUNIL KUMAR.C.M., S/O.C.R.MADHAVAN NAIR, 4/250, CHAKKASSERY HOUSE, KAITHAKKADU, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. K.D.FRANCIS, KULANGARA HOUSE, THURUTHIKKARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PATTIMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,FORT KOCHI - 682 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELOOR, VILLAGE OFFICE, ELOOR,PARAVUR TALUK - 676 554. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ELOOR POLICE STATION, ELOOR - 676 554. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.4994 OF 2011 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are owners of goods vehicles. They have filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to release their respective vehicles to them. It is contended that their vehicles were seized by the fourth respondent while they were transporting gravel and that as no permit is required for transporting garvel, the seizure was illegal. When the writ petition came up for admission on 17.2.2011 and later on 18.2.2011, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 2. Today, when the writ petition came up for further hearing, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions received from the fourth respondent, submitted that the vehicles belonging to the petitioners were seized late in the night of 13.2.2011 as they were used in the illegal conversion of a paddy field near the Subramanya Swamy temple at Eroor, that thereafter, a report regarding the seizure was submitted to the Wpc 4994/2011 2 District Collector and that the District Collector is seized of the matter. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that the District Collector has initiated proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 for confiscation of the vehicles and that if the petitioners require interim custody, their remedy lies in moving the District Collector in that regard. 3. Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008 empowers a police officer not below the rank of Sub Inspector of Police to enter and search any premises and seize any vessel, vehicle or any other conveyance or machinery used or deemed to have been used in any activity which contravenes the provisions of the Act. It also casts a duty on the officer making the seizure to submit a report to the Collector having jurisdiction over the area within forty eight hours of such seizure. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Collector to order confiscation of the object seized after complying with the prescribed procedure. It is evident from the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader that in the instant case the vehicles belonging to the petitioners have been seized under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Wpc 4994/2011 3 Though the Act does not contain a provision enabling the District Collector to grant interim custody, I am of the opinion that in the light of the principles laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Subramanian V. State of Kerala (2009(1) KLT 77), power should be conceded in the District Collector to order interim custody of vehicles seized by Sub Inspector of Police under the provisions of the Act. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of petitioners submitting appropriate petition before the first respondent seeking interim custody of their respective vehicles, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders thereon granting interim custody subject to the terms and conditions which he may deem fit and proper to impose. The District Collector shall while passing orders on the applications for interim custody, have due regard to the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shan C T V. State of Kerala and others ( 2010(3) KLT 413). P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE lgk