IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20671 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DAVIDSON, CHIRAYIL HOUSE KARICHAL, PAYIPPAD PO, BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE R.D.O ,REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE THIRUVALLA 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 4. LINCON ALEX,MANNATHU KUTTIKATTIL KADAPRA MANNAR GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 20671 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the seizure of the petitioner's tipper lorry alleging violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner's contention is that the person who seized the vehicle was not authorised to seize vehicles under the provisions of the Act and Rules. 2. A similar question was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P(C) No. 4304/2009, wherein Ext. P5 judgment has been passed as follows: “Petitioner is the owner of a Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-04-V/5002. On 3/2/2009, under Ext.P2 mahazar, the 2nd respondent in the presence of the 1st respondent seized the vehicle. Ext.P2 carries the signature of the 2nd respondent and also the witnesses. It is the seizure of the vehicle thus affected, which is under challenge in this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the seizure is without jurisdiction. Illustrating this, he referred me to Section 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. Section 12 of the Act reads as under: Appointment of Authorized Officers and their Powers: (1) The Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint such officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer as authorized officers and may determine the area of jurisdiction within which they shall exercise their powers under this Act. (2) The Authorized Officer may, for the purpose of inspecting whether any of the provisions of this Act have been violated, or to prevent the commission of any of the offences under this Act,- (a) enter any premises or any place connected therewith with such preparation as he thinks necessary for the inspection or investigation into the alleged offence under this Act; (b) require any person to stop any act in contravention of Section 3 or Section 11; (c) seize any vessel, vehicle or other conveyance or any W.P.C. No. 20671/10 -: 2 :- implements used or purported to be used in contravention of the provisions of this Act and send a report to the Collector for initiating proceedings for their confiscation; (d) require any person to furnish such information as he may consider necessary; (e) take photographs, make inventories or do their things necessary for collecting evidence regarding the commission of the offence and send a report to the Court of competent jurisdiction in order to prosecute the accused.” 4. A reading of the section shows that only an authorized officer can seize a vehicle as contemplated in Section 12 (2) (c). However 12(1) shows that the power of the Government to authorise an officer of the Revenue Department has to be only in respect of those officers who are not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer. 5. Evidently, Ext.P2 seizure mahazar shows that the same has been done by the 2nd respondent. From Section 12(1) since it is obvious that neither of the respondents could be Authorized Officers and for that reason, the seizure as per Ext.P2 cannot be upheld. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P2 and directing the respondents to release the tipper lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-04-V/5002 forthwith, on the production of a copy of this judgment. Since the facts of both cases are identical, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext. P3 seizure without prejudice to the right of respondents 1 and 2 to proceed in accordance with law in respect of the alleged violation in question. In view of the quashing of Ext. P3, the vehicle shall be released to the petitioner immediately. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.