IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7744 of 2010(P) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SUDHARMA MURALIDHARAN, DEVAKI MANDIRAM, MUTTOM P.O., HARIPAD. BY MR.P.SREEKUMAR, ADVOCATE. MR.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR), ADVOCATE. MR.P.S.SIDHAN, ADVOCATE. MR.V.K.RAJANANDAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. TAHASILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, HARIPAD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK. BY MR.P. NARAYANAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7744 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the registered owner of a Lorry having registration No.KL-3-M-430. The said vehicle was seized by the Village Officer alleging involvement in illegal reclamation of paddy field in Kumarapuram village. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.3325/2010 seeking for a direction to release the vehicle. The said writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P3 judgment in the light of the submission made by the respondents that the vehicle was seized under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and the 1st respondent had ordered confiscation of the vehicle under Section 20 of the Act. This prompted the petitioner to file an appeal before the District Court and the appeal is pending as W.P.(C) No.7744/2010 2 Criminal Appeal No.90/2010 of the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara. Later the petitioner came to know that no orders have been passed under Section 20 of the Act, and a notice was issued to the petitioner as per Exhibit P4. Therein it is mentioned that the vehicle was seized by the Additional Tahsildar, Karthikappalli. 3. The petitioner has produced a copy of the mahazar as Exhibit P7 which is prepared by the Village Officer. It is contended that under the provisions of the Act, Village Officer is not having any power to seize the vehicle. It is true that the Village Officer is not a designated authority to seize the vehicle under the Act. 4. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the 1st respondent is conducting an enquiry in the matter and an opportunity will be offered to the petitioner before final orders are passed. In the meanwhile, the vehicle will be released to the petitioner on executing a bond with two solvent sureties for production as and when ordered by the 1st respondent. On the petitioner executing a bond, the vehicle will be W.P.(C) No.7744/2010 3 released to the petitioner. Final orders will be passed by the 1st respondent within a period of one month since it is submitted that a hearing is scheduled to be held on 19.03.2010. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp