The court emphasized the Revenue Divisional Officer's duty to consider appeals under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act promptly, ensuring procedural fairness in protecting temple properties from encroachment.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass a speaking order on Ext.P5 appeal, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957, challenging Ext.P4 order dated 25.10.2023 of the 5^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner has also sought for a similar relief in respect of Ext.P6 stay petition filed along with Ext.P5 appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 and 5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P4 order dated 25.10.2023 of the 5^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , is now pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, along with Ext.P6 stay petition.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in case Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner is in order and the same is pending consideration, the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

5. ’Deva’ means God and ’swom’ means ownership in Sanskrit and the term ’Devaswom’ denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536]

6. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

7. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998)