DBP No.104 of 2023 — In the matter of Travancore Devaswom Board – Sabarimala – Complaint Alleging Acquisition of Devaswom Land for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport – Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 30TH KARTHIKA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ## **`DBP NO.104 OF 2023`** ``` IN THE MATTER OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD – SABARIMALA – COMPLAINT ALLEGING ACQUISITION OF DEVASWOM LAND FOR SABARIMALA GREENFIELD AIRPORT- SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS ``` ``` INITIATED - REG. ``` ``` ------------ ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, (KERALA KSHETHRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT JOINT SECRETARY), PUNCHAVAYAL P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686 513 ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** |**`1`**|**`STATE OF KERALA`**| |---|---| ||**`REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,`**| ||**`GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.`**| |**`2`**|**`THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT`**| ||**`REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT`**| ||**`SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.`**| |**`3`**|**`ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT`**| ||**`REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.`**| |**`4`**|**`TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD`**| ||**`QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695003.`**| 2 DBP No.104 of 2023 ``` R BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; ``` ``` SRI G.BIJU - STANDING COUNSEL- TDB ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 DBP No.104 of 2023 ## **ORDER** Anil K. Narendran, J. This DBP is registered _suo motu_ based on a complaint dated 18.08.2023 [file No.HCKL/7815/2023-DI-4] submitted by one M. Ramachandran Nair, who is the District Joint Secretary of Kerala Kshetra Samrakshana Samithi, Kottayam, alleging acquisition of Devaswom land for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport. Registry was directed to register DBP _suo motu_ with the complainant as the petitioner and list the matter before the Devaswom Bench, for considering the question of maintainability on the judicial side. 2. The only document enclosed along with the complaint dated 18.08.2023, is a copy of the Government order dated 06.01.2023, whereby administrative sanction has been granted for the acquisition of land in Erumeli South and Manimala Villages of Kottayam District for setting up of Sabarimala Greenfield Airport. In the complaint, it is alleged that out of the land proposed to be acquired for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport, some area belongs to Cheruvallikavu Bhagavathi Temple and Paschima Bhagavathi Temple. The complaint refers to various settlement registers and other documents. None of those documents are enclosed along with 4 DBP No.104 of 2023 the complaint. 3. On 16.10.2023, when this DBP came up for consideration, Registry was directed to issue notice to the complainant by speed post returnable within two weeks, on the question of maintainability of the complaint. Paragraph 3 of the order dated 16.10.2023 reads thus; “3. The question that requires consideration is whether such complaints can be entertained, when the challenge made is against the land acquisition proceedings, instead of filing a writ petition with proper pleadings and supporting documents.” 4. Despite service of notice, none appears for the petitioner-complainant. 5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the 4[th] respondent. 6. 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 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 5 DBP No.104 of 2023 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. 7. 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 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 had not been complied with and there being no particulars in respect of noncompliance 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 6 DBP No.104 of 2023 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 with 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 challenge to Rule 3 and the - averments regarding non compliance with Rule 4 were sketchy and without any particulars whatsoever. High Court was, 7 DBP No.104 of 2023 therefore, not right in quashing the acquisition proceedings. 8. 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 about the questions in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a 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 from 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 8 DBP No.104 of 2023 ## 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. 9. In the instant case, according to the complainant, the Devaswom land of Cheruvallikavu Bhagavathi Temple and Paschima Bhagavathi Temple is going to be acquired for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport, based on the administrative sanction granted by the Government in the order dated 06.01.2023, a copy of which is enclosed along with the complaint dated 18.08.2023. Though the complaint refers to various settlement registers and other documents, none of those documents form part of that complaint. 10. In the complaint, the complainant virtually challenges the acquisition of land for Sabarimala Greenfield Airport, on the ground that the land proposed for acquisition includes the Devaswom land of Cheruvallikavu Bhagavathi Temple and Paschima Bhagavathi Temple, for which the complainant has to file a writ petition, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with appropriate pleadings and materials and with proper parties in the party array, instead of submitting a complaint. 9 DBP No.104 of 2023 In such circumstances, this DBP is disposed of without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the complainant. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** AV 10 DBP No.104 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF DBP 104/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure 1 COPY OF ORDER DTD 06.01.2023 OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Annexure 2 MEMO BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCING POSTAL RECEIPTS OF SERVICE OF COPY OF PETITION TO PARTIES IN PETITION. ```