SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
 
Prabhakaran K.V., S/o Kallattuvalappil K.K.Velayudhan - Appellant
Versus 
State Of Kerala - Respondent 
W.P.(C) No.10267 of 2024
Decided on : 21-11-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, P.R.REENA
For the Respondent: ADV K.P. SUDHEER, SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP SRI. K.P. SUDHEER, SC, CDB

Parties must include all necessary stakeholders, such as landowners, in proceedings regarding temple land to ensure legal validity and adherence to statutory mandates.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 - Writ petition for mandamus seeking orders from Land Tribunal and District Collector regarding encroachment on land of Kuttumukku Devaswom - Parties filed petitions for purchase certificates but faced rejection based on legality and representation issues. (Paras 1, 6, 7, 26)

(B) Land tenure rights - Cultivating tenants' rights under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the need for proper procedural adherence in issuing purchase certificates, with emphasis on the role of the Devaswom Board in managing temple lands. (Paras 18, 20, 27)

(C) Legal representation - Importance of including rightful landowners in proceedings, as failure to do so invalidates the orders regarding land in question. (Paras 25, 28)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged orders of the Land Tribunal regarding their encroachment claims on temple land. They sought the issuance of purchase certificates, contending their rights as cultivating tenants. The land was under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board, which was not initially included in the petitions.

Findings of Court:
The Court emphasized the necessity of including relevant parties in land proceedings, ruled on the legal intricacies of temple lands and encroachment, and set a procedure for resolving disputes regarding land ownership.

Issues: The court addressed whether petitioners had the right to seek purchase certificates without the presence of the Devaswom Board as a respondent, along with challenges to the legality of the purchase certificates issued.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that encroachment proceedings must involve all necessary parties, especially the Devaswom Board in land matters related to temple and religious properties, and determined procedural duties of Land Tribunals in such cases.

Result: Writ petition disposed with directives for proper procedural adherence in ongoing land proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Land Tribunal, Thrissur to pass orders in S.M.Proceedings Nos.2681/2015, 4143/2015 and 2191/2015 filed for issuing purchase certificate under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, as directed by the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur, under Section 102 of the said Act, by Ext.P5 order dated 28.10.2019 in A.A.No.63 of 2019, Ext.P5(a) order dated 28.10.2019 in A.A.No.64 of 2019 and Ext.P5(b) order dated 30.11.2019 in A.A.No.18 of 2019, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent District Collector, Thrissur to pass orders on Ext.P9 Revision Petition dated 07.12.2023 filed by the 1st petitioner, Ext.P10 Revision Petition filed by the 2nd petitioner and Ext.P11 Revision Petition filed by the 3rd petitioner, under Section 16 (4) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, after affording them an opportunity of being heard, and until then direct the 5th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Cochin Devaswom Board, not to evict them from their respective properties. Ext.P9 revision petition filed by the 1st petitioner arises out of Ext.P7 order dated 17.08.2020 of the 3rd respondent Sub Collector (RDO), Thrissur, in an appeal filed by the said petitioner under Section 16 (1)(b) of the said Act, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 06.06.2019 of the 5th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), in the exercise of the powers under Section 15 of the said Act, on the ground that the petitioners and others have encroached the land of ‘Kuttumukku Devaswom’ under the management of Cochin Devaswom Board, comprised in Survey No.211/2 of Vilvattom Village.

2. Though the reliefs sought for in this writ petition are in respect of land comprised in Survey No.211/2 of Vilvattom Village of Kuttumukku Devaswom under the management of the Cochin Devaswom Board, the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition before this Court, without Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary as a respondent in the party array. When it was noticed, they filed I.A.No.2 of 2024, which was allowed by the order dated 10.06.2024, whereby Cochin Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, was impleaded as additional 6th respondent.

3. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2024, the petitioners have placed on record Exts.P10 and P11 additional documents, which was followed by I.A.No.3 of 2024 to accept Ext.P12 as an additional document. On behalf of the additional 6th respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, a counter affidavit dated 24.06.2024 is placed on record, opposing the reliefs sought for in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents. Petitioners have filed a reply affidavit dated 16.07.2024, producing therewith Exts.P13 to P31 documents.

4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Cochin Devaswom Board for the 5th respondent and also for additional 6th respondent.

5. According to the petitioners, the land having an extent of 1.72 Acres in Survey No.211/2 of Vilvattom Village was ‘Verumpattom’ right holding of one Parameswara Menon, who was holding the land as a cultivating tenant as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Parameswara Menon, vide Verumpattom sale deed No.1790/1974 dated 05.06.1974 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur, sold the property to one Gopalan Nair. After the death of Gopalan Nair, the property was partitioned by his legal heirs, vide partition deed No.2474 of 1997 dated 07.05.1997 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thrissur. The 1st petitioner obtained 62.5 cents of land in Survey No.211/2 of Vilvattom Village from the legal heirs of Gopalan Nair vide sale deed Nos.2021 of 2005, 2922 of 2005 and 2923 of 2005 of the Sub Registra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top