M. Radhakrishnan Pillai and others v. The District Collector Kollam, Kollam District and others

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 9866 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 M. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 59 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, RAJI BHAVAN, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`2 SALIMKUMAR S., AGED 65 YEARS S/O. SUKUMARAN, SAJAN VILASAM, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`3 RANI M., AGED 46 YEARS D/O. MADHANAN, CHIMBU NIVAS, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`4 PEETHAMBARAN R., AGED 79 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, THOTTUMKARA PUTHAN VEEDU, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`5 RAVEENDRAN R., AGED 62 YEARS S/O. RAMAN, PUTHAN VEEDU, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`6 ASWATHI KRISHNA R., AGED 28 YEARS W/O. AJITH K.S, RAJI BHAVAN, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** ``` 7 BINDU S., AGED 52 YEARS W/O. SAKTHI PRASAD, S R BHAVAN, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536 ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 - **`8 LEENA S., AGED 54 YEARS`** - **`W/O. SREEKUMAR, SREEKUMAR SADANAM, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`9 PRASANNA K., AGED 59 YEARS W/O. SURENDRAN R., S P BHAVAN, MANIKANTANCHIRA, PULIPPARA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** ``` BY ADV LIJU. M.P ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691001`** - **`2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KOTTARAKKARA TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506`** - **`3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR KOTTARAKKARA TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADAKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536`** - **`5 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695003`** - **`6 THE COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695003`** - **`7 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PUNALUR GROUP, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691305`** - **`8 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR) TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695003`** 3 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 ``` 9 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER THE MANIKANTANCHIRA DEVASWOM, MANIKANTANCHIRA, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691536 10 KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE KADAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 691536 ``` ``` R1 TO R4 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; R5 TO R8 SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL - TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P1 to P9 orders of the 8[th] respondent Special Tahsildar (LC) [wrongly mentioned as (LR) in the cause title] and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 and 9 to conduct a proper survey of each property of the petitioners and other affected parties, on the basis of revenue records and title deeds, at the earliest, and keep in abeyance all proceedings in furtherance to Exts.P1 to P9 till then. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that Exts.P1 to P9 are illegal and not sustainable in law as the same were issued without any authority under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. 2. Today, when this matter is came up for admission, we notice that the pleadings in the writ petition are totally silent on the extent of property owned by the petitioner and also the derivation of title. The order dated 05.01.2024 issued to petitioners 2 to 9, similar to Ext.P1 order issued to the 1[st] petitioner, are not placed on record. The documents marked as Exts.P2 to P9 are only notices in Form-C issued to petitioners 2 to 9. 5 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 3. 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. 4. 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 6 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 (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 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, 7 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 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. 5. 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 8 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 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. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings and proper documents. 7. Based on the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the maintainability of the writ petition against Ext.P1 or similar orders issued by the 8[th] respondent Special Tahsildar (LR). Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** AV/13/3 9 W.P.(C)No.9866 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9866/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 'CHARGE' ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH AN ORDER BEARING NO. A2-239/09(2) DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ``` ``` Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2024 ```