Point of law: No Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, a devotee of Sangameswara Swami of Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple, Irinjalakuda, who owns land comprised in Survey No.657/1 of Manavalassery Village with a residential building situated therein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State and the 2nd respondent Koodalmanikyam Devaswom to consider Ext.P2 representation dated 03.03.2015 and Ext.P3 representation dated 17.10.2016, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, after affording her an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 05.12.2017 of the 3rd respondent Administrator, Koodalmanikyam Devaswom, whereby she is required to remove the encroachments on 5 cents of Devaswom land comprised in Survey No.658/1 & 2 of Manavalassery Village, within a period of one week, and give vacant possession to Koodalmanikyam Devaswom, failing which legal proceedings will be initiated against her.

2. In Ext.P5, the 3rd respondent has pointed out that the 2nd respondent Devaswom had initiated proceedings against the petitioner, requiring her to remove the encroachments in the aforesaid land and give vacant possession. The petitioner challenged those proceedings by filing O.S.No.547 of 2008 before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, which has already been withdrawn. The petitioner was informed vide Ext.P4 reply dated 10.11.2016 of the 3rd respondent that, Devaswom land having an extent of 5 cents comprised in Survey No.658/1 & 2 of Manavalassery Village cannot be assigned to her, in view of the provisions under the Koodalmanikyam Devaswom Act, 2005, as sought for in the representations already submitted.

3. On 27.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Koodalmanikyam Devaswom sought time to get instructions from respondents 2 and 3. On 13.04.2018, while granting time to the learned Standing Counsel for Devaswom to file statement, this Court has passed an interim order to maintain status quo. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

4. On 19.03.2021 the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking an order directing the 1st respondent State to consider Ext.P2 representation dated 03.03.2015, wherein a request has been made to assign Devaswom land having an extent of 5 cents comprised in Survey No.658/1 & 2 of Manavalassery Village, on payment of the land value to be fixed by the 1st respondent State.

5. On 28.06.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“The recitals in Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner herself would admit the fact that she is not having title over the property. Earlier, O.S.No.547 of 2008 was instituted by her before the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda against Koodalmanikyam Devaswom. Ext.P2 would reveal that subsequently it was withdrawn. That apart, Ext.P2 would also reveal that the intention of the petitioner is to purchase the property in question. We are at loss to understand how the petitioner can claim an absolute right to purchase the property, especially when the property belongs to a Devaswom and going by the legal position, the Devaswom is only a trustee of the property of the deity concerned, who is a perpetual minor. Though in Ext.P2 the petitioner discloses the factum of institution of an original suit and the subsequent withdrawal of the same, the reason therefore, is not very clear from Ext.P2. In the said circumstances, the petitioner shall disclose such aspects by filing an additional affidavit. The question of extension of the order initially granted on 13.04.2018 and extended from time would be decided then. However, taking note of the fact that an interim order was passed on 13.04.2018 and it is still in force till today, we are extending the interim order passed on 13.04.2018 till 14.07.2021.” (underlin