Chirakal Kovilakom Devaswoms represented by its Executive Officer v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943** **W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **CHIRAKAL KOVILAKOM DEVASWOMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, P.O. CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR - 670 011** ## **BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE (N) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670002.** - **3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), NHAI KANNUR(COMPETENT AUTHORITY),KANNUR-670002.** - **4 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), NHAI KANNUR(COMPETENT AUTHORITY) AT TALIPARAMBA-670141.** - **5 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LANH, KANNUR-670002.** - **6 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LANH, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-670141.** - **7 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER,G-5 AND 6,SECTOR10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075.** - **8 VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIVELLUR,PAYYANUR TALUK, KANNUR-670521.** W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 2 |**9**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**VELLUR,PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670307.**| |**10**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**KOROM, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670307.**| |**11**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**PARIYARAM,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670502.**| |**12**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**TALIPARAMBA,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR-670141.**| |**13**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**MORAZHA,TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR-670567.**| |**14**|**VIALLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**KUNHIMANGALAM,PAYYANUR TALUK,KANNUR-670309.**| |**15**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**CHERUTHAZHAM,PAYYANUR TALUK,KANNUR-670501.**| |**16**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**KADANNAPPALLI-PANAPPUZHA,PAYYANUR TALUK,KANNUR-670501.**| |**17**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**KALLIASSERI,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670562.**| |**18**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**PAPPINISSERI,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670011.**| |**19**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**CHIRACKAL,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670011.**| |**20**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**PUZHATHI,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670004.**| |**21**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**CHELORA,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670018.**| |**22**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**ELAYAVOOR,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670594.**| |**23**|**VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**VALIYANNUR,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670594.**| W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 3 - **24 VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMBILODE,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670613.** - **25 VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMBOOR,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670663.** - **26 VILLAGE OFFICER, MUZHALIPPILANGAD,KANNUR TALUK,KANNUR-670662.** - **27 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HOUSEFED COMPLEX,P.O.ERANHIPALAM,KOZHIKODE-673006.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN - STANDING COUNSEL, NHAI SRI T.K.VIPINDAS -SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI R. LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, namely, Chirakal Kovilakom Devaswoms represented by its Executive Officer has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 (competent authority) to verify and find out the lands in each survey number described as LSGD roads, PWD roads, puramboke, thodu, idavazhi etc. in Ext.P1 and all the similar notifications under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1951 in Kannur District, which are shown in the name of Chirakal Kovilakom Devaswoms as per revenue records, through the village officers concerned who are arrayed as respondents 8 to 26. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 3 and 4 (competent authority) to pay compensation for acquisition in respect of such lands, which are identified to be belonged to Chirakal Kovilakom Devaswoms as per revenue records, to the petitioner. 2. In **Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988)** W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 5 **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 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 **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 W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 6 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 the 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 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 W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 7 principles of natural justice. 4. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the pleadings in this writ petition not meet the requirements laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, in order to seek the reliefs sought for. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed for the aforesaid reason; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings and materials on record, seeking appropriate reliefs within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C)NO.32416 OF 2018 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C)No.32416 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES (NOS.34,35,36,37,38)OF NOTIFICATION NO.S.O.3479(E)DATED 13.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.06.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT** ## **EXHIBIT P4** - **TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,CHERUTHAZHAM(RESPONDENT NO.15).** **EXHIBIT P5** - **TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR** **ACQUISITION,PUBLISHED IN MARTHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 20.09.2017.**