Manoj Kumar vs Tahsildar Kozhikkode Taluk, Civil Station, Kozhikkode, Kozhikkode District, Pin 673001

N.Nagaresh, J

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the seizure of his Excavator/JCB bearing registration No.KL-57B-5874 by the 2nd respondent on 24.11.2022.

The petitioner states that his Excavator/JCB was deployed in Re-Survey No.41/3 of Perumanna Village for levelling the land on 24.11.2022. The Excavator has been seized alleging that it has been used violating the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder.

The petitioner points out that even going by Ext.P1 seizure mahazar, the land in Re-Survey No.41/3 is a ‘Nanja land’. Admittedly, the land is not included in the Data Bank. The petitioner’s Excavator has been used only for levelling the land and not for construction of any building. Therefore, in effect there is no change of nature of land. The seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle is therefore illegal.

Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that the land is described as ‘Nanja land’ in Revenue records. Therefore, for making any change in the nature of the land, the land owner has to first get the nature of the land changed in Revenue records. Since the petitioner’s vehicle was found used for reclaiming the land, the seizure was effected. The seizure is perfectly legal and justifiable, contended the Senior Government Pleader.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

Going through Ext.P1 Mahazar, it is evident that the land in Re-Survey No.41/3 of Perumanna Village is not included in the Data Bank. The land is described as paddy land in Revenue records. The petitioner's specific case is that the land is now in the nature of a garden land and is being cultivated with arecanut trees. There is no development activity in the land. The petitioner’s vehicle has only been used for levelling the land.

This Court finds that an identical issue was considered in Deepu v. District Collector [2022 (4) KLT 583], wherein this Court held that though the term ‘change of nature of unnotified land’ is defined to mean acts or series of acts whereby the nature of unnotified land is changed or has been changed, the ‘ change of nature of land’ per se is neither made an offence nor is there any absolute prohibition. As far as the issue involved in this writ petition is concerned, the vehicle was only used for levelling the land which already is lying as a garden land/purayidam. There is no allegation of any building construction or substantial change in the nature of the land.

Therefore, following the judgment of this Court in Deepu v. District Collector (supra), the writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent-Tahsildar to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-57B-5874 forthwith.