Remanded

Kamalan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Aug 2013Crl.Rev.Pet/1655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside orders confiscating a vehicle under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The Court held that the District Collector must first determine if confiscation proceedings can legally stand without prior proceedings against the landowner, especially when no violation allegations exist against her.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders under challenge passed by the District Collector as well as the District & Sessions Court were set aside and the case remanded to the original authority.

Kamalan Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1655 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A. 6/2013 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT-I,MAVELIKKARA.

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT:

¶8

KAMALAN, AGED 46 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, VALIYATHARAYIL, PRAYAR P.O., OACHIRA, ALAPPUZHA-690547.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.PRADEEP

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶13

2. TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-688014.

¶14

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA-688014.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.LIJU V. STEPHEN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. HARILAL, J.

¶18

Crl.R.P. No. 1655 of 2013

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of August, 2013

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The revision petitioner is the registered owner of an earth mover (described hereinafter as 'JCB' for convenience) bearing registration No.KL-29-5437. The above JCB was hired by one Smt. Geetha Lakshmanan in order to move the gravel already unloaded in her land comprised in Sy.No.685/14-3,685/2-3,685/14-2/1,685/9-3 of the Krishnapuram Village. When the revision petitioner's JCB arrived in the said land, on a complaint that it was brought to the said land for reclamation of paddy land, the Village Officer, Krishnapuram, seized the said vehicle and has given possession to the Kayamkulam police. According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner is in no way linked with any illegal activity, if any, occurred in the property belonging to Smt. Geetha Lakshmanan. The report submitted by the Agricultural Officer clearly states that the vehicle used to unload the gravel has not been identified

¶22

Crl.R.P.1655/13 :2:

¶23

and the same is evidenced by Annexure-3. Similarly, the property from where the vehicle has been seized is not included in the data bank prepared under the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act'). More interestingly, so far no proceedings had been initiated under the Act against the said Smt. Geetha Lakshmanan from whose property the vehicle has been seized. But the District Collector started confiscation proceedings, without considering the above aspects.

¶24

Aggrieved by the confiscation proceedings, the revision petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.26180/12 before

¶25

this Court and this Court by judgment dated 14/11/12 directed the District Collector to finalise the proceedings within a period of three months. Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the District Collector considered the objection raised by the revision petitioner against confiscation of the vehicle and passed Annexure-4 order. By Annexure-4 order, the District Collector confiscated the vehicle under Sec.20(1) of the Act and granted an option to the revision petitioner to release the vehicle on condition

¶26

Crl.R.P.1655/13 :3:

¶27

that the revision petitioner shall deposit a sum equal to 1½ times the value of the seized vehicle.

¶28

Aggrieved by the said order, though the revision petitioner had preferred Crl. Appeal No.6/13 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mavelikkara, the Additional Sessions Judge also confirmed the confiscation order passed by the District Collector and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition is filed challenging the concurrent findings confirming the confiscation of the petitioner's vehicle.

¶29

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the court below miserably failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its correct perspective. In absentia any allegation that the petitioner's vehicle was put to actual use offending the provisions of the Act, the order of confiscation is illegal and liable to be set aside. Neither the District Collector nor the appellate authority considered the fact that property in question was not included in the Data Bank and only the adjoining properties were included. In the impugned order passed by the

¶30

Crl.R.P.1655/13 :4:

¶31

District Collector itself it is specifically stated that the property from where the vehicle had been seized is not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner's vehicle had been seized on the allegation that it was used for reclaiming paddy land of the above said Geetha Lakshmanan. But no proceedings has been initiated so far against Geetha Lakshmanan, alleging any kind of violation under the above Act.

¶32

In view of the arguments advanced by the learned

¶33

counsel for the revision petitioner, the issue that arises for consideration is, whether the confiscation proceedings under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act would lie in the absence of any proceedings against the land owner, who had allegedly attempted to reclaim her property using the seized vehicle, in violation of the provisions of the Act.

¶34

On the basis of the issue raised in this Revision, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed to seek instruction as to whether any proceedings under the Act is initiated against the land owner from whose property the vehicle had been seized. On instruction, the learned Public

¶35

Crl.R.P.1655/13 :5:

¶36

Prosecutor submits that no proceedings under the Act has been initiated against the land owner, from whose property the vehicle has been seized, alleging violation of the Act.

¶37

Going by the impugned orders under challenge, neither the District Collector nor the appellate authority had ventured to consider this issue. I am of the opinion that it is for the District Collector to decide the issue whether the proceedings under Section 20 will lie independently, even in the absence of proceedings for violation of the Act against the land owner, who allegedly made an attempt to reclaim her property using the vehicle, in violation of the Act. The point raised by the counsel is sound and considerable. Is it a proceeding corollary to the parent proceedings? As rightly submitted by the learned counsel, in view of the facts and circumstances, the absence of such proceedings against the land owner gives rise to a reasonable inference that there was no violation of

¶38

the provisions of the Act. At this juncture, I am of the opinion that this is an issue to be decided at first by the District Collector himself on the basis of the facts and

¶39

Crl.R.P.1655/13 :6:

¶40

evidence available on record.

¶41

Therefore, I set aside the impugned orders under challenge passed by the District Collector as well as the District & Sessions Court and remit the case back to the original authority, the District Collector, to decide this issue on the basis of the materials on record, after hearing both parties. Any how, the District Collector is directed to dispose of the matter afresh within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the revision petitioner shall appear before the District Collector on 03.9.2013.

¶42

This Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- (K.HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶44

Nan/okb

Kamalan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sathian Vs State of Kerala

P.Abdurahiman Haji Vs Malathingal Kunheen Haji

Sahajan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam Vs the State of Kerala

Antony Vs Santha

D. Madhu Vs State of Kerala