IMPORTANT POINT
Property disputes involving temple land should be resolved by civil courts, and due process must be followed before issuing orders affecting property rights.

JUDGMENT :

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P13 and P14. As per the averment in the writ petition the petitioner is the Managing Trustee of the properties belonging to Koottathilara Sree Vishnu Moorthy, the deity of Kolari Bhooda Sthaanam. An extent of 88 cents situated in Resurvey No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village belongs to Koottathilara Vishnu Moorthy is recorded as such in the revenue and settlement register as evident from Ext.P1. The temple situated in the property is more than 300 years old where daily poojas are performed. While so, based on an anonymous complaint that the petitioner is cutting and removing trees from the Government puramboke land, a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating that the cutting and removing of the trees from the property of the Government is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act . Later Ext.P2 order was issued by the Tahsildar holding that the property having an extent of 88 cents situated in Resurvey No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village is a Government property and the petitioner was treated as a trespasser and a consequential order was issued to evict the petitioner from the property and also imposed a fine of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same Ext.P3 appeal was preferred by the petitioner under Section 15(1) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act before the Sub Collector. The appeal preferred before the Sub Collector was dismissed as per Ext.P9 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order, the petitioner has approached this Court filing W.P. (C)No.18027/2021, which is allowed as per Ext.P12 judgment quashing Ext.P9 and remanding the matter back to the 3^rd respondent directing him to reconsider the matter afresh on the basis of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nandakumar v. District Collector [2018 (1)KLT 1019] and Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court produced therein. After hearing, the 3^rd respondent again rejected the appeal as per Ext.P13 holding that the property is a puramboke land. While so the Ombudsman for Self Government Institutions (the 4^th respondent herein) passed Ext.P14 order by stating that the property belonging to Koottathilara Sree Vishnu Moorthi Temple is “Sarkar Puramboke” and so the compound wall, temple arch and “Idu”(Sree Moolasthanam of Sree Vishnu Moorthi) should be dismantled within a period of two months from the date of the said order. The petitioner submits that no notice was issued to the them or the petitioner was heard before issuing Ext.P14 order. It is aggrieved by these orders that the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 11 and 12 contending that the intention of the writ petitioner is to deny access through the public way. The petitioner has erected Arch and also put laterite stones so as to block the public pathway, which is a puramboke land. The petitioner does not possess ownership right over the land and the petitioner does not obtain any permission from the Municipality for such construction even if it is assumed that the land belongs to them. It is also contended that the petitioner has carried out construction of several structures unauthorisedly, as admittedly no building permits have been obtained from the Municipality. The petitioner has not established title and exclusive right over the entire extent of 88 cents in Re.Sy.No.20/4 of Nileshwaram Village.

3. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

4. On the earlier round of litigation which culminated in Ext.P12, this Court while considering the question as to whether the land is a puramboke land or the property of the deity, held that it is an issue to be decided by appropriate civil court and the official respondents have no right to take over the temple and its land using the power granted as per provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, especially in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Nandakumar's case cited(Supra) and also Ext.P12 order of the Apex Court produced in W.P.(C) No.1802