Kerala High Court
Vibin.P.V vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:12016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 24TH MAGHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
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
BY ADVS. R.KRISHNA RAJ
R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)
E.S.SONI
SREERAJA V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT(DEVASWOM) SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
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
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:12016
SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI REGISTER NO.1220/87,
KOKKUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY MOHANAN, PIN - 679591
5 VIJAYAN, S/o KRISHNAN PAAKKATH KALLUVALAPPIL
HOUSE KOKKUR.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
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN SR. GP
SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 13.02.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:12016
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are devotees of Kokkur Sree
Mahavishnu Temple, which is a controlled institution under the
Malabar Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition 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. On 18.10.2024 when this writ petition came up for
consideration, this Court passed an order after noticing the law
laid down by the Apex Court on the pleadings in a writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraphs 2
to 4 of that order reads thus:
"2. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:12016
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 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 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
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:12016
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 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 expanded or grounds being shifted during
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:12016
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."
3. Thereafter, this writ petition was listed on various
dates, since the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time
to file an application for amendment.
4. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,
the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition,
without prejudice to their right to file a fresh writ petition with
proper pleadings and proper parties in the party array.
Based on the above submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn; however without prejudice to the aforesaid right of
the petitioners.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DMR/-
WP(C) NO. 20177 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:12016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20177/2024
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:30/1 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:30/2 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:39/10,39/11,39/12 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:39/13, 39/14 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:39/16, 39/17 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN
SYNO:39/18,39/19 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER IN SY
NO:39/20,39/21,39/22,39/23 DATED 29.04.1905
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
22.04.2013
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT FILED BY THE
DEVASWOM, MALAPPURAM DIVISION WITH THE
HANDWRITTEN COPY OF THE LAST PAGE DATED
28.10.2006
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE
THAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR DATED
25.03.2018
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE
VILLAGEOFFICER, ALAMKODE DATED 15.12.2022
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
