Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 88771
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
SUO MOTU – Appellant
Versus
THE PRESIDENT – Respondent
DBP 60/2019
S.KARTHIKA, SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN, G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P), R.RAMADAS, N.SUKUMARAN (SR.), REJI MATHEW, M. JAYAKRISHNAN, VAZHOOR, N.K.KARNIS, V.K.BALACHANDRAN, MATHEW VARGHESE, SAJU THOMAS
Procedural fairness requires that all parties be afforded an opportunity to be heard before decisions affecting their rights are made.
Headnote:(A) Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 - Sections 1(3), 2(a), 3, 4, 15, 15A, 16, 24, 27, 31 - Writ petitions concerning Devaswom land management - Petitioner sought to quash an order of the Special Tahsildar and compel reconsideration of a complaint regarding encroachment - Court found that the Special Tahsildar failed to afford necessary parties an opportunity to be heard, violating procedural fairness. (Paras 1, 24, 26)
(B) Procedural Fairness - The court emphasized the necessity of affording an opportunity to all parties concerned before passing orders affecting their rights. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a devotee, challenged an order by the Special Tahsildar regarding Devaswom land, claiming it was issued without proper notice or hearing. The court noted that the Special Tahsildar had previously been directed to reconsider the matter with due process.
Findings of Court:
The order of the Special Tahsildar was set aside, directing him to take a fresh decision after hearing all parties within two months.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Special Tahsildar's order was valid given the lack of notice and opportunity for the petitioner and the Devaswom Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard constituted a violation of procedural fairness, necessitating the quashing of the order.
Result: The order dated 10.08.2018 of the Special Tahsildar was set aside.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The subject matter of these writ petitions and DBP is the Devaswom land of Udayamperoor Major Ekadeshi Perumthrikovil Devaswom, Mulanthuruthi in Ernakulam District, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board under Udayamperoor Sub Group, Vaikom Group.
2. W.P.(C)No.11523 of 2019 is one filed by the petitioner, who is a devotee of Udayamperoor Major Ekadeshi Perumthrikovil Devaswom, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order dated 10.08.2018 of the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar to reconsider Ext.P1 complaint dated 04.03.2013 filed by the petitioner, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Ext.P5 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition is one issued by the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P4 order dated 09.04.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in DBP No.29 of 2018, which was one registered based on TDB Report No.26 of 2018 of the learned Ombudsman on a complaint alleging encroachment and trespass into the properties of Udayamperoor Major Ekadeshi Perumthrikovil Devaswom.
2.1. On 10.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed the following order:
“The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P5 order has been passed by the very same officer against whom some serious observations have been made by this court while passing Ext.P4 judgment, however, giving him one more opportunity to correct the obvious mistakes referred to therein and to set things right. The learned counsel submits that, despite the specific direction to pass fresh orders only after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned, no notice was ever served to the petitioner or even to the Devaswom. The said version is virtually supported by Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board as well.
2. The learned Government Pleader submits that copy of the writ petition is not served upon the respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner also seeks for time to implead the officer concerned in his personal capacity.”
2.2. By the order dated 28.07.2021 in I.A.No.1 of 2021, additional respondents 6 to 11 were impleaded, who are the alleged encroachers.
2.3. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit dated 12.08.2019, supporting the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Ext.R1(a) letter dated 17.01.2019 of the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar, addressed to the Registrar General of this Court, enclosing therewith an action taken report on the land conservancy proceedings relating to Udayamperoor Major Ekadashi Perumthrikkovil Devaswom, in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P4 order dated 09.04.2018 in DBP No.29 of 2018.
2.4. Along with a memo dated 20.09.2019 filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, a report dated 20.09.2019 of the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar is placed on record. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2019, the petitioner has placed on record Exts.P7 to P13 additional documents.
2.5. Respondents 6 to 11 have filed counter affidavit dated 25.08.2021, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(c) documents, which was followed by I.A.No.2 of 2021 seeking an order to implead additional respondents 12 to 17, since the property in question has been transferred in the name of the third parties. That interlocutory application was allowed by the order dated 21.09.2019.
3. W.P.(C)No.997 of 2020 is one filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.11523 of 2019, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 10.08.2018 of the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), which is already under challenge in W.P.(C)No.11523 of 2019 as Ext.P5.
3.1. On 15.01.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, t
