Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Shree Kumramputhoor Bhagavathy Devaswom Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi – Appellant
Versus
Malabar Devaswom Board, Represented by its Secretary – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 25272 of 2015, W.P. (C) No. 8572 of 2020
Decided On : 19-01-2026
The facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioners, representing the Devaswom, sought to recover land that they allege has been encroached upon by the respondents, who are under the control of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The land in question is associated with the Sree Kumaramputhur Bhagavathy Temple and has a history of ownership disputes and claims of occupancy dating back several decades. The land originally belonged to Varikkumanchery Mana, which had executed a lease deed in 1948 for a portion of land, but despite the expiry of the lease, the property continued in possession of the lessee and subsequent transferees without renewal or proper legal title. Over the years, the property was transferred through various sale deeds and gift deeds, with some of the respondents claiming to have obtained fixity of tenure and purchase certificates from the Land Tribunal, and paying land taxes regularly.
The petitioners contend that the land is to be recovered from the illegal occupants and that the income generated from these properties is meant for the upliftment of the temples. They also assert that the Devaswom Board, as the guardian of temple properties, failed to assert its rights over the decades, which has led to the current disputes. The respondents, on the other hand, claim they have continuous possession, lawful title, and that their occupation is supported by documents issued by governmental authorities, and therefore, they should not be evicted under summary procedures.
The case involves complex issues of land ownership, tenancy rights, and the legal status of temple properties, with disputes primarily centered around whether the occupants are trespassers or lawful possessors supported by legal documents and longstanding possession.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction and related writ petitions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. facts of land ownership and previous transactions (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. judicial considerations of relevant statutes (Para 31 , 32 , 37) |
| 4. application of summary eviction under klc act (Para 53 , 56) |
| 5. ruling on ownership disputes and dismissal of writs (Para 70 , 72) |
JUDGMENT :
K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.
1. W.P.(C) No. 25272 of 2015 is preferred by Sree Kumaramputhur Bhagavathy Devaswom Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi. The 1st petitioner is the Convener of the said Samithi and the 2nd petitioner is a member. The 1st respondent is Malabar Devaswom Board and the 2nd respondent is its Assistant Commissioner. The 3rd respondent is the Secretary to the Government. The respondents 4 to 9 and 11 are the party respondents. The 10th respondent is the Executive Officer of the Sree Kumaramputhur Bhagavathy Devaswom.
2. W.P.(C) No. 8572 of 2020 is preferred by one Jose P. and his wife Thressiamma. The issues of fact and law involved in these Writ Petitions are common and therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 25272 of 2015 is taken as the lead case. The parties and exhibits are referred in this judgment as stated in the said Writ Petition, unless otherwise specifically indicated.
3. The brief facts of W.P.(C) No. 25272 of 2015 are as follows:
It is stated in the Writ Petition that the 1st petitioner is the Convener of the Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi constituted by the devotees of the five temples existing under Sree Kumaramputhur Bhagavathy Devaswom, which is functioning under the supervisory control of the Malabar Devaswom Board and the 2nd petitioner is a member of the said Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Samithi’).
4. It is stated that Sree Kumaramputhur Temple belongs to Varikkumanchery Mana. In the year 1948, a lease deed was executed by the members of the said Mana pertaining to 22.43 acres of land situated in Survey No. 72/5 A1 Part of Kumaraputhur Village to one Kunjunni Nedungad. Ext. P1 is the true copy of the said document. As per this document, all the 7 items in part A of the schedule and one item in Part B of the schedule are Kumaramputhur Bhagavathy Devaswom Janmam. The said lease was for a period of one year.
5. In spite of the expiry of the lease period, the property was never taken back by the Varikkumanchery Mana and the lessee continued his possession in the property. Later, the possession of the property was taken over by the wife of Kunjunni, namely Bhagheerathy Kovilamma, after his death.
6. Thereafter, vide document No. 3344/1969 sale deed, the said Bhagheerathy Kovilamma had transferred the leasehold right to Smt. Parvathy Ammal. The petitioners contended that sale deed No. 3344/1969 itself is void and inoperative. Thereafter, the said Parvathy Ammal has gifted 19.03 acres of land out of the total extent of 22.43 acres to her brothers as per Ext.P2 gift deed No. 3374/1970 dated 03.12.1970.
7. Subsequently, the brothers of Smt. Parvathy Ammal again transferred the entire property having an extent of 19.03 acres to four persons executing separate sale deeds in the year 1974 and 1979. It is contended that now the said properties are in the possession of respondents 4 to 9.
8. It is further stated in the Writ Petition that the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad initiated suo motu proceedings as S.M. No. 116/1977 against Smt. Parvathy Ammal alleging that she is holding excess land and an order was passed directing to surrender 7.43 acres after fixing the ceiling area at 15 acres.
9. The extent of land ordered to be surrendered happened to be in the possession of Smt. Pathumma, the 4th respondent. Therefore, she has filed several petitions before this Court challenging the proceedings initiated by the Land Board at various stages. This Court has remanded the matter several times to the Land Board and ultimately by order in CRP No. 631/2010, this Court has finally remanded the mat
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act enables summary eviction from Government land; however, established occupancy and title disputes require civil court adjudication.
Collateral materials will also have to be looked into to ascertain the genesis of the property.
The court emphasized the necessity for proper inquiry into the validity of encroachments and adherence to statutory provisions regarding temple properties, particularly concerning purchase certificat....
The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.
Parties must include all necessary stakeholders, such as landowners, in proceedings regarding temple land to ensure legal validity and adherence to statutory mandates.
Writ petitions seeking eviction from private temple lands under Land Conservancy Act are not maintainable without impleading Ooralans as necessary parties, as Act provisions apply only to Devaswom Bo....
Disputes regarding title and possession of land necessitate proper judicial scrutiny, especially where evictions under the Land Conservancy Act are challenged on grounds of legitimate claims. Governm....
The court held that the lack of evidence and compliance with procedural requirements precludes relief under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.
Transactions regarding religious endowments must demonstrate absolute legal necessity and obtain prior authorization, or they will be deemed void such that any resulting deeds or certificates lack le....
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 t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
