Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57297
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ
PRAMESH V. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P.(C)NO.7033 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.KRISHNA RAJ, E.S.SONI, KUMARI SANGEETHA S. NAIR, RESMI A.
For the Respondents: SHRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, K.M.ANEESH, K.SANTHOSHKUMAR, ADARSH KUMAR, DILEEP CHANDRAN, SHASHANK DEVAN, SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The court ruled that a writ petition regarding temple property protection cannot be entertained when a related civil dispute is ongoing, reinforcing the principle of maintaining jurisdictional integrity.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Encroachment on temple property - Petitioner sought an order for protection of temple land and eviction of encroachers - Reference made to Apex Court's decision in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] regarding temple property protection - Court deemed the petition non-maintainable due to ongoing civil proceedings concerning the same property. (Paras 1, 19)
(B) Religious and Charitable Institutions - Duty to safeguard temple properties - The court stated that it's the responsibility of authorities to prevent encroachment on religious properties. (Para 11)
(C) Jurisdiction of High Court - Emphasized the High Court's parens patriae jurisdiction in protecting properties of deities and ensuring legal compliance in their management. (Paras 10, 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged illegal encroachment and demolition of Kottayil Bhagavathy Temple's property, which was supposed to be protected by the state authorities following a Supreme Court directive. Respondents 5 and 6 were accused of encroaching on the temple land.
Findings of Court:
The allegation of encroachment remains under dispute in an ongoing civil suit, justifying dismissal of the writ petition for lack of maintainability.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could request protective measures during the pendency of a related civil suit regarding the same temple property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that allowing the petitioner to pursue the writ under these circumstances would be improper as the matter is sub judice in another court.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. encroachment upon temple property and related grievances. (Para 1 , 5) |
| 2. reports and findings related to the temple's encroachment case. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 18) |
| 3. duties of courts to protect properties of religious institutions. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal principles regarding the protection of devaswom properties. (Para 11 , 15 , 17) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed for lack of maintainability. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 5 and 6 and several others have encroached upon the property of Kottayil Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No. 163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and demolished the temple situated therein, in spite of the complaint filed by the petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State of Kerala and the 2nd respondent District Collector, Palakkad to protect the land of the minor deity of Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No.163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village and maintain the same by evicting all the encroachers, including respondents 5 and 6, and take appropriate steps to secure the said property by protecting it from encroachers and to take adequate steps to ensure that the said property is exclusively used for temple purposes alone, in the light of the order of the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. The petitioner has also sought for an order directing the 3rd respondent District Judge, Palakkad to consider Ext.P9 petition dated 24.02.2022, in terms of the directions contained in the said order of the Apex Court.
2. On 03.03.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission before the learned Single Judge, notice before admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 5 and 6, returnable by seven days. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Archaeological Survey of India took notice for the 4th respondent. By the order dated 03.03.2022, Registry was directed to obtain a report from the 3rd respondent District Judge on the issues relating to the temple involved in this case. Thereafter, by the order dated 19.05.2022, this writ petition was ordered to be listed before the Division Bench dealing with Devaswom matters.
3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 03.03.2022, a report dated 02.04.2022 of the District Judge, Palakkad is placed on record. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 14.01.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 6th respondent.
5. In the writ petition, it is stated that the property of Kottayil Bhagavathy Temple having an extent of 2.35 Acres in Sy.No.163/11 of Alanellur-2 Village, covered by Ext.P1 settlement register, is encroached by respondents 5 and 6 and others. On account of that encroachment, daily poojas have been stopped and ultimately, the temple was destructed by the said respondents. Still, poojas were conducted till recently. When the devotees decided to renovate the temple and started preliminary works, respondents 5 and 6 made a complaint before the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, complaining that devotees, namely, Krishnan, Parameswaran and Narayan Kutty have encroached into their property and started the construction of the temple without getting necessary permission from the Grama Panchayat and the 2nd respondent District Collector. Based on that complaint, proceedings were initiated by the Sub Collector, Ottapalam and an order has been
