Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of a writ petition challenging an allegedly illegal building raised on land claimed to be paddy wetland, after finding that the petition’s exhibits were not properly marked with their descriptions in the statement of facts or grounds. Although the accompanying affidavit stated the annexed records were true copies, the Court held that documents must be identified with descriptions and marked appropriately in the pleadings and reflected in the index. It granted liberty to file a fresh petition with proper pleadings.

The writ petition was filed by a farmer seeking multiple reliefs concerning alleged illegal construction on 28 cents of paddy land in Angadippuram Village, Malappuram District. The petitioner sought to restrain authorities from assigning a building number or occupancy certificate to a structure constructed by private respondents on land classified as wetland, to quash a building permit issued by the Grama Panchayat, to enforce a Stop Memo dated 23.03.2023, and to direct demolition of the structure under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

Also Read: Power Of Attorney Holder Can Represent Company In Cheque Dishonour Case Only If Witnessed Transaction Or Has Direct Knowledge: Kerala High Court

The petition included several exhibits such as a farmer award certificate, building permit, official correspondence, RTI replies, a possession certificate showing land type as wetland, a title deed, and satellite images. During consideration, the Court examined the manner in which these exhibits were referred to and marked in the statement of facts. The issue before the Court concerned compliance with the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971 regarding authentication and marking of documents in writ proceedings.

The Court stated the manner in which Exhibit P1 was referred to in the pleadings and recorded: “The petitioner is a devoted farmer engaged in paddy cultivation in Angadipuram village, Malappuram district. In recognition of his efforts, he was awarded the best farmer (paddy) award in 2016 by the Angadipuram Grama Panchayat’s Krishi Bhavan (Exhibit P1). The petitioner cultivates paddy land in the vicinity of the dispute wetland property, and his livelihood depends on the ecological health of the local wetland and paddy fields”.

The Court observed, “I am of the considered opinion that this is not the manner in which a document is to be marked in the statement of facts in a writ petition.”

Referring to the Rules, the Court stated that “In addition to the proof of facts and documents by rendering an affidavit as contemplated in Rule 154 of the Kerala High Court Rules 1971 (for short Rules 1971), the description of the document has to be provided, and thereafter it should be marked in the statement of facts or grounds of the writ petition.” It further recorded, “The marked exhibits should also be shown in the index.”

Referring to WP(C) No. 24300/2021, OP(KAT) No.119/2019 the Court observed: “The description of each and every document has to be provided in the statement of facts of the writ petition and in the affidavit filed in support of an interlocutory application or counter affidavit or reply affidavit, as the case may be, which shall contain a brief description of that document.”

The Court also quoted: “The intermingling of Annexures and Exhibits in O.P (KAT) and O.P (CAT) leads to good lot of confusion.”

From Siddique v. District Collector and Others, it recorded: “Proof of facts and documents shall be tendered by affidavit.” It further noted: “This means that the affidavit filed in support of a writ petition… shall contain clear statements in proof of the facts stated in the writ petition and also in proof of the documents tendered along with the writ petition. Short of that, the affidavit or the writ petition is not entitled to be entertained.”

The Court stated, “Keeping in mind the above principle, it is mandatory that the marking of the documents with a description is necessary in the statement of facts or in the grounds of the writ petition. This is the procedure followed by this court for decades. How these defects are not noted by the registry is surprising. The Registry has erred in numbering this writ petition without proper marking of the exhibits in the writ petition.”

Also Read: Karta’s Acquisitions Presumed Joint Hindu Family Property Unless Contrary Proved; Supreme Court

The Court recorded the submission of counsel and stated, “I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings. Granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with proper pleadings, this Writ Petition is disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Shri Muhammed Zain Shabeer P.P., Shri Shibu Babu, Shri Riyas B.S., Shri Arun Kumar C.S., Shri Anish M.M., Shri Muhammadali Manekkathodi, Smt. Dhanya Palan, Sri Vimal Kumar A.V.

For the Respondents: Shri P. Abdul Nishad, SC, Grama Panchayat; Smt. Vidya Kuriakose, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Nowfal v. Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2026: KER:7671

Case Number: WP(C) No. 47857 of 2025

Bench: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan