Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1602
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple, Represented by Its Hereditary Trustee, Rayiramkandath Janardhanan Nair & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The District Collector, Palakkad & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 33805 of 2018
Decided On : 21-05-2025
For the Appellant : Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan.
For the Respondent: Sri. R. Lakshmi Narayan, SC, Malabar Devaswom Board, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, Sri. S. Rajmohan, SR. GP; Smt. R. Ranjanie, SC, MDB.
The right to remit basic tax for temple properties is contingent upon the determination of hereditary trusteeship by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 57(b) of the HR & CE Act, 1951.
Headnote:
(A) HR & CE Act, 1951 - Section 57(b) - Writ petition for quashing order rejecting acceptance of basic tax for temple properties - Petitioner claims hereditary trusteeship, disputed by respondents - Court held that the right to remit tax depends on the outcome of pending proceedings regarding hereditary trusteeship - No opinion expressed on merits of claims. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner - Authority to decide matters regarding hereditary trusteeship under Section 57(b) - Ongoing proceedings must conclude before tax acceptance can be mandated. (Paras 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a temple represented by its hereditary trustee, sought to quash an order refusing to accept basic tax for temple properties, claiming management rights disputed by others. The original petitioner died during proceedings, leading to changes in representation.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the right to remit tax is contingent upon the determination of hereditary trusteeship by the Deputy Commissioner, which is still pending.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner has the right to remit basic tax based on the hereditary trusteeship claim, which is under dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the resolution of the hereditary trusteeship claim must precede any obligation to accept tax payments, reinforcing the authority of the Deputy Commissioner in such matters.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, with no opinion on the merits of the claims.
JUDGMENT :
P.V. Balakrishnan, J.
The petitioner, Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple, represented through its hereditary trustee, has filed the above writ petition seeking the following reliefs;
“i) To call for the entire records culminating in Ext.P7 order and to quash the same;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to accept the basic tax of the properties covered by Exhibits P1, P2, P3 & P4 along with arrears of basic tax from the petitioner.”
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the temple and its properties belonged to Rayiramkandath Tarward and are under the management of the petitioner as the hereditary trustee. The basic tax of the properties belonging to the temple were paid by the manager of the family from time to time. During 1996-97, some disputes occurred in respect of the rights of the property and the management of the temple and the basic tax could not be paid for few years. Subsequently, when the 3rd respondent refused to accept the basic tax, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 application dated 20.02.2017 before the 3rd respondent requesting to accept the basic tax of the properties. Since the respondent kept idle, the petitioner preferred W.P(C) No.19987 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.01.2018 directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent rejected the request as per Ext.P7 order dated 12.07.2018 stating that unless an Administrative Officer is appointed for the temple by Malabar Devaswom Board, the land tax cannot be accepted from the hereditary trustee. It was also stated that the temple and its properties have been taken over by the HR & CE, Department as per the order in O.A.No.18 of 1983 dated 04.12.1985 (Ext.P9). O.A.No.18 of 1983 was only a proceeding in which the temple was declared as a public temple and in the order it is specifically recorded that the properties of the temple are in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of the properties as the hereditary trustee and the Devaswom Board has no right/title over the properties of the religious institution.
3. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit challenging the entitlement of the petitioner to remit the basic tax. It is contended that the trusteeship of the temple is vested with Kuthira- vattom Swaroopam and since they found it difficult to manage the affairs of the temple, a committee comprising of the devotees and elected from among them was constituted. The members of Rayiramkandath family, to which the petitioner belongs, is only having some customary rights in the temple. In the order passed in O.A.No.18 of 1983, it is clearly stated that the petitioner will have to establish his right as hereditary trustee by preferring appropriate proceedings, which he has not done. The day today affairs of the temple are being controlled by the Committee with the prior permission of the Malabar Devaswom Board and neither the petitioner nor any other members of his family have taken any interest in the affairs of the temple. The petitioner’s name do not find a place in the Adangal extract and the petitioner is trying to establish title over the property without resorting to a civil suit.
4. The 5th respondent filed a statement dated 22.10.2019, wherein, it is contended as follows:
“2. It is submitted that the petitioner temple is a religious institution coming under the purview of HR & CE Act,1951, consequently under the supervisory control of Malabar Devaswom Board. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition earlier, as W.P.( C) No.7369 of 2019, apprehending the appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees behind the back of the Hereditary Trustees. The Hon’ble Court without expressing on the merits of the claim mooted by the petitioner, for the hereditary trusteeship, disposed off the writ petition, vide judgment date
