High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Pal & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - WRIT - C No. 38626 of 2007  RD-AH 14260 (20 August 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38526 of 2007
Ram Pal & Ors.
State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners in a most scandalous manner, seeking relief under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 merely on the ground that the proceedings under the said Act 1976 stood lapsed after the Act being repealed in 1999. The proceedings were initiated against the father of the petitioners and vide order dated 28.06.1977 an area measuring 9854.00 sq. meters was declared as surplus. It is stated that father and mother of the petitioners have died. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order only in July, 2007. However, the petitioners are not in a position to give the dates of death of aforesaid persons.
As the petition does not disclose the dates of death of father and mother of the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the petition has been filed in a cavalier manner, without giving material facts. This petition does not contain proper pleadings.
It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"In our opinion, 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 the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e. a plaint or written statement, the facts and not the 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."
Similar view has been reiterated in M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. Vs. Chandra Prakash Pandey, AIR 2001 SC 1298.
In M/s. Atul Castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvachan Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-
"The findings in the absence of necessary pleadings and supporting evidence cannot be sustained in law."
Similar view has been reiterated in Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Prakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18; Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. P. Savithramma & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 653; and Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252.
In view above, as the petition does not contain proper pleadings and learned counsel for the petitioners failed to plead the case of the petitioners and prove the same by substantiating the evidence, we are not in a position to decide the case. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.