Confiscation of Excavator Cannot Be Automatic Against Innocent Third-Party Contractor:

Confiscation of Excavator Cannot Be Automatic Against Innocent Third-Party Contractor The appellant was the owner of a JCB excavator seized and ordered to be confiscated by the District Collector for alleged illegal reclamation of paddy land under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The excavator had been engaged by the landowner to carry out work on the property. The appellant contended that he was a third-party contractor with no knowledge that the land was classified as paddy land in revenue records or the data bank. The confiscation order was upheld by the learned Single Judge, prompting the present writ appeal. Issue Before HC: Whether a third-party owner of a vehicle, who lacks knowledge or connivance in illegal reclamation of paddy land, can be subjected to confiscation under Section 20 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. HC's Order: The Hon'ble High Court held that Section 20 of the Act confers discretion on the District Collector and does not mandate automatic confiscation in every case. The Court distinguished between landowners who directly violate the Act and third-party contractors who merely supply vehicles without knowledge of the land’s classification. It ruled that confiscation of a third-party’s vehicle requires foundational facts establishing knowledge or connivance. The District Collector failed to exercise statutory discretion fairly. The confiscation order was set aside insofar as it related to the appellant, and directions were issued to proceed against the landowner in accordance with law and to release the security furnished for interim release of the excavator. To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below