Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34239
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi Kunnathuserry/Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Kshetram – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
W.P.(C) NO. 13645 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Lakshmi Narayan, R. Ranjanie
For the Respondents: S. Rajmohan, G. Santhosh Kumar, S. Ananthakrishnan
The Travancore Devaswom Board has the authority to reclaim possession of temple properties under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, despite contested claims of possession.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 - Sections 3(1) and 11 - Writ Petition seeking directions for removal of encroachments on temple properties - Court underscores the necessity for action against encroachments as per Land Conservancy Act, clarifying distinction on vested property. (Paras 20, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction of Tahsildar - The court reiterates that the jurisdiction under the Land Conservancy Act remains applicable, and that incomplete records do not negate the Devaswom Board's claim to properties. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought relief to quash orders regarding alleged encroachments on temple properties by filing a writ petition, after unsuccessful prior appeals through administrative channels.
Findings of Court:
Orders declining action against encroachments were quashed, mandating fresh decision based on applicable laws.
Issues: Whether the properties claimed by the temple were rightly deemed encroachments and if appropriate actions should be initiated under the Land Conservancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that despite historical claims of possession, the land still falls under the purview of the Devaswom Board, warranting legal redress.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. invocation of jurisdiction under article 226 for property encroachment claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. context and history of ongoing legal disputes over temple properties. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. claims of possession challenged by counter claims based on historical sales and conveyances. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 4. legal framework establishing temple trusteeship and recovery of deity properties. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. court decision mandating action under land conservancy act. (Para 20 , 24) |
“C.R.”
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The Temple Advisory Committee and two devotees of Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple, also known as Kuthullisserry Bhagavathy Devaswom, have filed this Writ Petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking decree of certiorari quashing Ext.P6, P7 and P8. The petitioners seek a further relief of a writ of mandamus directing the 9th respondent-Special Tahsildar, Kerala Land Conservancy Unit of the Travancore Devaswom Board to take steps under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 for removing encroachments from the properties of the Temple, which are described in Ext.P6. In the alternative, a direction to respondent Nos.5 and 6 to institute civil suits for the recovery of the said properties is sought.
2. There were litigations initiated by the Temple Advisory Committee. As a sequel to such litigations, the 9th respondent was approached for the removal of encroachments upon the properties of the Temple. The 9th respondent took the stand that the properties in question do not come within the purview of Section 3 of the Land Conservancy Act and, therefore, no action for summary eviction under Section 11 of the Act could be initiated. Ext.P6 is the order of the 9th respondent. An appeal was preferred before the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, but the same was dismissed as per Ext.P7 order dated 19.08.2019. The matter was taken up before the District Collector. The District Collector also took the same view and dismissed the revision. Challenging the said orders, the Temple Advisory Committee approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Commissioner refused to intervene stating that the District Collector in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 16(2) of the Land Conservancy Act had taken the decision and therefore no further revision could be entertained.
3. When this matter came up for consideration on06.08.2021, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government pleader sought time to file counter affidavits.
4. Pursuant to notice, the party respondents, i.e., respondent Nos.12 and 13 entered appearance.
5. Respondent Nos.5 to 9 filed a counter affidavit through the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board. Respondent Nos.12 and 13 filed a counter affidavit producing therewith Exts.R12(a) to R12(c). The petitioner filed a reply affidavit on 15.11.2021 in answer to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 to 9 and respondent Nos.12 and 13. A counter affidavit was filed by the 3rd respondent for and on behalf of other official respondents also. An additional counter affidavit was filed by respondents No.12 and 13. These respondents filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 producing therewith Exts.R12(d) to R12(h).
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 and 13.
7. The petitioners filed WP.(C) No.161 of 2016 before this Court with the allegation that the 9th respondent-Special Tahsildar was not taking effective steps for resuming the properties of Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple, which are in the possession of third parties. As per Ext.P2 judgment in that Writ Petition, this Court insisted on the parties to sort out the matter in an amicable way and further observed, if required, that the hierarchy of authorities under t
