Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 33983
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
NSS KARAYOGAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 23922/2023
BHANU THILAK, S.R. PRASANTH, SARUN K. IDICULA, VISHNU.R, S. RAJMOHAN, SANTHOSH KUMAR G
The court upheld the authority of the Travancore Devaswom Board over the disputed land, classifying it as Devaswom property, and dismissed the petitioner's claims of possession.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 – Section 11(1) – Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 21, 27, and 50 – Writ petition challenging eviction orders – Petitioner claimed possession of land used for temple purposes, but the court upheld the authority of the Travancore Devaswom Board over the property as Devaswom land. (Paras 2, 11, 14, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction under Article 226 – The court cannot interfere with factual findings of lower authorities unless they are perverse or incorrect. (Paras 15)
Facts of the case: The petitioner sought to quash eviction orders regarding land claimed to be used for temple purposes, asserting long-term possession. The Travancore Devaswom Board claimed ownership under relevant statutes.
Findings of Court: The court found that the petitioner failed to prove legal title or ownership over the disputed land, which was deemed Devaswom property.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the eviction orders and the determination of property rights between the petitioner and the Devaswom Board.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s claims lacked legal standing as the land was classified as Devaswom property, and the orders issued were valid and based on proper authority.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner aggrieved by Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P2, P3 and P4 orders and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the said orders.
2. Ext.P2 is an order issued by the 5th respondent under Section 11 (1) of Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957 together with C-Form asking the petitioner to surrender vacant possession of 0.81 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.224/2021 (old survey No.117/14, 15B and 16B) of Kottarakkara Village. This is part of 41.60 Ares of land said to be owned by the 4th respondent-Travancore Devaswom Board, being the Temple premises of Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, Kulasekharanellore. Ext.P3 is the order of the 3rd respondent in the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 order. The appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed a revision before the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed as per Ext.P4 order. The said orders are challenged in this writ petition on various grounds.
3. Respondents No.4 and 5 filed a counter-affidavit.
The claim of the Travancore Devaswom Board on 41.60 Ares of land to which the property in question forms a part are explained in paragraph Nos.8 to 13 in the counter-affidavit, which are extracted below:
“8. It may be noted that Kulasekharanalloor Sreekrishna Swami Temple and its movable and immovable properties stands vested with Travancore Devaswom Board as per Section 3 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act 1950. Section 21 of the said Act defines the Devaswom property and Section 50 defines all the land which belongs to any Devaswom under the sole management of the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government and all provisions of the Land Conservancy Act shall be applicable to such Devaswom lands. As the temple in question is included in the Scheduled List of Devaswoms in the TCHRI Act, 1950, Section 27 of the Act is squarely applicable. Before the formation of Devaswom Boards, the temple and its properties were managed by the Devaswom Department which was part of Revenue Department and hence in revenue records the Devaswom lands were described as puramboke. Therefore, even though this land is described as puramboke in the settlement register the Travancore Devaswom Board has absolute ownership over the property as a temple is situated in the puramboke land and the same is used for the purpose of performing religions rituals in connection with festivals, etc. the same can be considered as Devaswom lands.
9. It is submitted that the re-survey BTR of Kottarakkara villages shows that an extent of 41.60 Ares of land in Resurvey No.224/21 is poramboke, Sarkar. Old Survey No.117/14, 117/15B, 117/16B are correlated to Resurvey No.224/21. Further, N.S.S Karayogam is not a government entity and hence their possession of a portion of poramboke land without any legal document can only be considered as an encroachment. It may be true that they have carried out festival ceremonies etc. But this does not confer any claim over the title of the property and their claim for possession ceases as and when a dispute over title of property arises. The provisions of Land Conservancy Act 1957 is clearly described in Section 50 of TCHRI Act.
10. It may be noted that being part of the enquiry, the petitioner was heard by the 5th respondent. The provisions of KLC Act is applicable in the case as the land in dispute is a puramboke land. The petitioner had produced documents such as notices, bills etc., which were insufficient to prove the right over the Devaswom property.
11. It may be noted that the claim of the petitioner regarding the possession right of the property is a matter of dispute between the petitioner organisation and the Travancore Devaswom Board. The order of eviction under the provisions of KLC Act is absolutely based on proprietary right over the property. The documents said to have been
