Kerala High Court
Vibin.P.V vs State Of Kerala on 18 October, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
Friday, the 18th day of October 2024 / 26th Aswina, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
1. VIBIN.P.V. AGED 34 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN THUDUPPINIYAMGATTU HOUSE
KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679591.
2. SUBRAMANIAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O.KUNJUNNI MULLAKKAL HOUSE, KOKKUR.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679591.
RESPONDENT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE
DEPARTMENT(DEVASWOM) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CONFERENCE HALL,
COLLECTRATE ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM , PIN - 676591.
3. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOUSEFED
COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, KERALA, PIN - 673006.
4. KOKKUR SREE MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI KOKKUR SREE
MAHAVISHNU KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI REGISTER NO.1220/87,
KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MOHANAN, PIN -
679591.
5. VIJAYAN S/O KRISHNAN PAAKKATH KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSEKOKKUR.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM , PIN - 679591.
6. KAVITHA VIJAYAN PAAKKATH KALLUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KOKKUR.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM , PIN - 679591.
7. ABDU S/O AALI MUHAMMAD, AZHIKULANGARA HOUSE KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM
, PIN - 679591.
8. ASHRAF S/O ABDUL HAJI MANAMKANDATH HOUSE KOKKUR P.O MALAPPURAM, PIN
- 679591.
9. SHAMSUDDHIN ILLATHVALAPPIL HOUSE KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM , PIN -
679591.
10. KUNJAVARAN S/O MOIDU PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM ,
PIN - 679591.
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P-6 as directed
by the apex court in W.P.(c).No.649/2018 daated 5.7.2018 direct the
respondents 1 to 4 to take appropriate steps to see that the property
having an extent of 17.80 Acres of land situated in Survey No173, 174 and
256 of Kokkoor Village belonging to minor deity of Kokkoor Mahavishnu
Devaswom is secured by evicting all the encroachers including respondents
1 to 3 by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or
direction pending disposal of this case.
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition
and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this court's order dated
19.6.2024 and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. R.KRISHNA RAJ,
R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA), E.S.SONI, SREERAJA V., Advocates for the
petitioners, STANDING COUNSEL for Malabar Devaswom Board, the court passed
the following:
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.20177 of 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2024
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition, as the devotees of Kokkur Sree Mahavishnu Temple, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, in order to see that the property of the minor deity having an extent of 18.88 Acres in Survey No.173, 174 and 256 of Alangode Village, is protected by evicting the encroachers. In the writ petition, it is averred that at present, only an extent of 1.08 Acres of land is in the possession of the temple and the remaining land has been encroached upon by the party respondents, i.e., respondents 5 to 10, and others. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated that respondents 5, 6 and 7 have encroached 28.36 Ares and 28.31 Ares respectively, of Devaswom land comprised in Survey No.256/1 of Alangode Village.
2. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove 2 W.P.(C)No.20177 of 2024 such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.
3. In M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Gujarat [(1998) 4 SCC 387] the Apex Court was dealing with a case arising out of the proceedings initiated for the acquisition of land for M/s.Larsen and Toubro Ltd. under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Apex Court noticed that, in the absence of any allegation that Rule 3 the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied and there being no particulars in respect of non compliance of Rule 4 also, it is difficult to see as to how the High Court could have reached the finding that 3 W.P.(C)No.20177 of 2024 statutory requirements contained in these Rules were not fulfilled before issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. High Court did not give any reason as to how it reached the conclusion that Rules 3 and 4 had not been complied in the face of the record of the case. Rather, it returned a finding which is unsustainable that it was "not possible on the basis of the material on record to hold that there was compliance with Rules 3 and 4". The Apex Court held that, it is not enough to allege that a particular Rule or any provision has not been complied. It is a requirement of good pleading to give details, i.e., particulars as to why it is alleged that there is non compliance with a statutory requirement. Ordinarily, no notice can be taken on such an allegation which is devoid of any particulars. No issue can be raised on a plea, the foundation of which is lacking. Even where rule nisi is issued, it is not always for the department to justify its action when the court finds that a plea has been advanced without any substance, though ordinarily department may have to place its full cards before the court. On the facts of the case, the Apex Court found that the State has more than justified its stand that there has been compliance not only with Rule 4 but with Rule 3 as well, though there was no 4 W.P.(C)No.20177 of 2024 challenge to Rule 3 and the averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings.
4. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2011) 7 SCC 639] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead its case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the averments made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. Pleadings and particulars are required to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question(s) in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is settled legal proposition that as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted. Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being 5 W.P.(C)No.20177 of 2024 expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. If any factual or legal issue, despite having merit, has not been raised by the parties, the court should not decide the same as the opposite counsel does not have a fair opportunity to answer the line of reasoning adopted in that regard. Such a judgment may be violative of the principles of natural justice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks adjournment.
List on 04.11.2024.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
MIN
18-10-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar