V.K. Bali, C.J.

1. What the appellant could not achieve by litigation, he achieved by his connections in the corridors of power. This infuriated the Zamorin Raja of Calicut who took exception to the result achieved by the appellant and thus constrained under the circumstances he filed W.P.(C).No.19258 of 2005 which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 18th November, 2005. It is against this order of the learned Single Judge that the present writ appeal has been filed.

2. The facts of the case reveal that Thirunavaya Nava Mukunda Temple is one of the temples under the trusteeship of the Zamorin Raja and it comes under the purview of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. In as much as the existing area of the temple aforesaid had outlived the present requirements, land acquisition proceedings were initiated on the request of the Zamorin Raja in connection with 35 cents of land in Sy.No.385/5 and 389/1 of Thirunavaya village. The land as mentioned above was required for future developments of the temple and for parking facilities. After inspection by the land acquisition officer, the acquisition was confined to the land in Sy.No.389/1 which was nearest to the temple and most suitable for the purpose. Sanction was accorded on 27.11.2002 for acquisition of the property. The appellant aggrieved by the said acquisition filed W.P.(C).No.23652 of 2003 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment Ext.P2. It is quite apparent that the land was sought to be acquired urgently and hence simultaneous notifications under Sections 4(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act were issued for the purpose on 1.1.2003. The Zamorin Raja of Calicut along with the petition also produced Ext.P1A, true copy of the sketch prepared by the Thirunavaya village officer, according to which the property belonging to the appellant was the nearest and most suitable land which could be utilized as parking space and for other developments of the temple.

3. While dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant this Court in the Judgment Ext.P2 took into consideration the contentions that were raised by him. The appellant challenged the judgment of this Court Ext.P2 by way of a writ appeal which was withdrawn. Even though a specific request to withdraw the writ petition with permission to move the Government for the desired relief was made but the same was declined. Despite these facts which are undisputed the Government passed the order Ext.P4 under which the District Collector, Malappuram was directed to stop the proceedings for acquisition of 14.46 cents in Sy.No.385 belonging to the appellant and to find out a better place for the temple. It is this order which was challenged by the Zamorin Raja of Calicut with the results indicated above.

4. The case of the Zamorin Raja of Calicut, the petitioner in the original lis, was that after the judgments Ext.P2 and P3 the appellant had influenced the authorities and steps were taken to drop the proceedings for the land acquisition. The Principal Secretary to Government served a letter to the District Collector, Malappuram to discuss the issue with the petitioner for finding out a new place for the purpose of the temple. A reading of Ext.P4 would show that the Principal Secretary was relying upon a letter dated 7.12.2002 sent by the then managing trustee of the temple to the District Collector for stopping the acquisition proceedings. The petitioner pointed out that the letter was Ext.P2 in the writ petition filed by the appellant and was one of the documents upon which he relied in W.P.(C).No.23652 of 2003 for challenging the acquisition proceedings. The Government in the counter affidavit filed by it in the said writ petition pleaded that the appellant had obtained the said letter by misleading the then Zamorin Raja, the managing trustee of the temple. Government further averred therein that on verification of the true facts that the trustee found that there was no other suitable land and accordingly the trustee had sent another letter Ext.P6 cancelling his letter dated 7.12.2002 and requesting to continue with the acquisition proceedings of the appellants property. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant inclusive of the one that was raised on the basis of the letter dated 7.12.2002. It was further the case of the petitioner that inspite of all these facts the Secretary to Government issued impugned letter Ext.P4 directing the District Collector to discuss with the petitioner for finding out whether other suitable lands are available for the purpose of the temple. It was thus pleaded and so argued that it was the very letter which was the base for quashing the land acquisition proceedings and the Government had opposed the said prayers by even mentioning that the said letter was manipulated and the appellant was still able to manipulate withdrawal of the land acquisition proceedings. This, it was asserted, was done as a result of tremendous influence exerted by the appellant on the Government. Before we may proceed any further we would like to mention that the Government defended issuance of Ext.P4 by asserting that Zamorin Raja vide letter dated 7.12.2002 has himself stated that the matter should be discussed with him to find out whether suitable alternative land can be acquitted.

5. From the facts as narrated above the learned Single Judge returned a finding that the letter Ext.P4 was issued on the influence exerted by the appellant and was mala fide. We have gone through the lengthy judgment recorded by the learned Single Judge in arriving at the conclusions aforesaid. We find no infirmity in the findings of mala fide returned by the learned Single Judge, nor, we may point out, has anything been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant for us to take a different view.

6. Without touching the finding of mala fide, learned counsel for the appellant however contends that when the land acquisition proceedings have not been finalized as the land had not vested with the Government free from all encumbrances the Government has the power under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. That may be so, but we are of the view that fraud and mala fides vitiate everything. Once there is no scope for even a pin to go in the findings recorded by the Single Judge that issuance of letter/order Ext.P4 was an outcome of the influence exerted by the appellant and was mala fide there would be no scope to take a view other than the one taken by the learned Single Judge. The letter/order Ext.P4 shall have to be quashed and that is what precisely has been done by the learned Single Judge. In addition to the impressive array of facts taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge in arriving at a finding of mala fides, we may add that the appellant could not show from any pleadings or documents placed on record that any property but for the one under acquisition was adjoining or situated near the temple for the purpose the land subject matter of dispute was required. An effort to thus find out an alternate land for the purpose of acquisition was to get away from the land acquisition proceedings. We may also mention that only adjoining land to the existing temple or situated in imminent close vicinity thereof can be suitable for expansion of the existing temple and that is of the appellant alone.

Finding absolutely no merit in this writ appeal we dismiss the same in limine.