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

2026 Supreme(Ker) 59

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K.V.JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
N. Krishna Kurupp S/o C.N. Narayana Kurupp – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
WP (C) No. 32014 of 2025
Decided On : 28-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, Praveen K.S.
For the Respondents: R. Ranjanie, S. Rajmohan, Prabha R. Menon, Manoj Ramaswamy

The court ruled that the lease of temple property was unjustifiable due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and lack of necessity, emphasizing the prioritization of temple interests over public purpose in property alienation.

Headnote:(A) Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 - Section 29 - Lease of temple property - The impugned order granting sanction for alienation of temple land for bus stand construction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedure and lack of necessity. The temple's income was sufficient to meet its needs, and public purpose doctrine was not applicable. (Paras 28, 31, 49, 53)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the Commissioner’s order sanctioning a 33-year lease of temple land to the Grama Panchayat for a bus stand, arguing it would adversely affect temple activities and violate prior court directives.

Findings of Court:
The court found no necessity for the lease, as the temple was financially stable and prior judgments emphasized the need to safeguard temple interests over public purposes.

Issues: The key issues included the compliance with Section 29 of the Act and whether the lease was necessary or beneficial to the temple.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lease was unjustifiable, as it did not serve the temple's interests and was issued without proper consideration of the statutory obligations. The public purpose doctrine was deemed inapplicable to temple property alienation.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; the Commissioner’s lease sanction quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. petition challenges lease of temple land (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. concerns raised regarding temple property alienation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. additional objections to lease process (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. legal arguments on the validity of lease (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. need for compliance with procedural requirements (Para 16 , 17)
6. court discusses procedural non-compliance (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. arguments concerning temple property management (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. counterarguments supporting lease arrangement (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. judicial evaluation expression concerns (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
10. key issues of necessity and benefit in lease (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
11. court reiterates fiduciary duties of trustees (Para 33 , 34 , 35)
12. requirements under section 29 of the madras hr & ce act (Para 36 , 37 , 38)
13. critique of procedural compliance in lease sanction (Para 39 , 40)
14. assessment of public purpose vs. temple interests (Para 41 , 42 , 43)
15. argument against financial motives in religious institutions (Para 44 , 45 , 46)
16. legal obligation to safeguard temple properties (Para 47 , 48)
17. final decision against lease legality (Para 49 , 50 , 51)
18. conclusion and order regarding the case (Para 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext. P15 order of the 6th respondent, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, wherein sanction was accorded to lease out 73 Cents of land in Resurvey No. 602/3 of Pulpally Village owned by the 8th respondent, Pulapally Devaswom, to the 10th respondent, the Pulpally Grama Panchayath, for a period of 33 years.

2. The writ petitioners state that Sree Pulaplly Sitha Lava Kusha Temple is an ancient Temple of Malabar. The Temple property consists of the sanctum sanctorum of the main deities of the Temple, namely, Seethadevi, Lord Lava and Kusha (children of Seethadevi), Lord Sree Hanuman, Lord Shiva, Lord Ganapathi, Lord Subrahmanya, Vettaykkorumakan and Lord Dharmashastha. According to the petitioners, thousands of worshippers visit the Temple every year to pay offerings to the deities.

3. The petitioners contend that the Temple had extensive areas of landed properties. It is stated that due to mismanagement and corruption on the part of the Temple administration, including the Trustee, a large extent of the properties have been lost. At present, the Temple has 20 to 22 Acres of property in their direct possession and enjoyment.

4. The Temple and the sub-shrines are situated in Resurvey No. 605 of Pulpally Village. The properties surrounding the Temple are in Resurvey No. 602. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the Adangal Extract of Resurvey No. 602/3.

5. The petitioners state that the 6th respondent, Commissioner, issued Ext.P2 notice dated 21.10.2022 stating that an application has been received from the Trustee of the Temple seeking permission for transferring an extent of 73 Cents of landed property belonging to the Temple situated in Resurvey No. 602/3of Pulpally Village on lease to the Grama Panchayat for the purpose of expansion of the existing bus stand. The proposed lease was for a period of 33 years and the rate of monthly rent per Cent is Rs. 600/-. If the land is leased out, it would be beneficial for the Temple and that would increase the scope of development of the Temple. However, no details of the property were shown in the said notice or any survey plan was appended.

6. The 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P3 objection dated 21.11.2022 to the 6th respondent. In the objection, it is stated that the property in Resurvey No. 602/3 is situated contiguously with the property in which the sanctum sanctorum and the sub-shrines are situated. Moreover, there are several yielding rubber trees in that parcel of land. In the year 2018, there was an attempt to alienate a portion of the same land for constructing a new bus stand. Challenging that proposal, a suit was filed as O.S. No. 17 of 2018 before the M

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