J. Sunderraj v. The Secretary, Elappara Grama Panchayath and Elappara Grama Panchayath represented by its Secretary

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946 W.P.(C)NO.25319 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` J. SUNDERRAJ AGED 52 YEARS ``` ``` S/O. JOHNSON, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 686008 ``` ``` BY ADV K.RAKESH ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE SECRETARY ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685501`** ``` 2 ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 685501 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI. RAJEEV V.K, SC, ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of a property comprised in Sy.No.724 of Vagamon Village in Peerumedu Taluk, having an extent of 12 cents, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent Secretary of Elappara Grama Panchayat to issue occupancy certificate and building number for the construction made in that property covered by Ext.P1 basic tax receipt dated 26.06.2024 and Ext.P2 possession certificate dated 26.06.2024 issued by the Village Officer, Vagamon. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get occupancy certificate and building number for the residential building, which he has already constructed in the property in question. 2. In the remarks column of Ext.P1 tax receipt it is made clear that the acceptance of land tax is subject to the outcome of the enquiry and final decision on the genuineness of the Patta issued in respect of the lands in Sy.No.724 of Vagamon Village. As per the endorsement made in Ext.P2 3 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 possession certificate, it is one issued pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 15.09.2021 in W.P.(C)No.21241 of 2020, subject to the final outcome of the enquiry conducted by the Revenue, Vigilance and Crime Branch on the genuineness of the Patta issued in respect of lands in Sy.No.724 of Vagamon Village. As evident from the appendix to Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C)No.21241 of 2020 filed by the petitioner herein along with 9 others, the Thandaper extract of the property of the petitioner herein was marked as Ext.P6 and the possession certificate and basic tax receipt were marked as Exts.P7 and P8. 3. The averments in the writ petition do not disclose anything about the nature of title of the petitioner over the property in question covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt and Ext.P2 possession certificate. The petitioner has not chosen to array the State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department and the District Collector and the concerned revenue officials as respondents in this writ petition. In view of the provisions under Rule 148 of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, which deals with addition of parties, all persons directly affected shall be made parties to the 4 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 ## petition. ## 4. 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 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. 5. 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 5 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 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 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 6 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 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. 6. 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 7 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 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 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. 7. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking reliefs in respect of the property having an extent of 12 cents in Sy.No.724 of Vagamon Village, in a writ petition which does not even disclose anything about 8 ## W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 the nature of his title over that property and without the State, the District Collector and the concerned Revenue officials in the party array. In the result, this writ petition fails on the aforesaid grounds and the same is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings and proper parties in the party array. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE** MIN 9 W.P.(C)No.25319 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25319/2024`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED FROM VAGAMON VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 26-6-2024 ``` - **`EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 26-6-2024 ISSUED FROM VAGAMON VILLAGE OFFICE`** ``` EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15- 09-2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.21241/2020 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 6-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` - **`EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED BUILDING PLAN OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE`** - **`EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF BUILDING NUMBER ALONG WITH THE TYPED.`** ``` EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT DATED 24-6-2022 ISSUED FROM THE ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE ```