Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47545
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
VASUDEVAN KIDAVU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/15190/2022
T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR, C.SIVADAS, T.O.DEEPA, SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.), MANSOOR.B.H., PROMODH KUMAR, SUSMITH KUMAR, SAKEENA BEEGUM, PREETHI. P.V., M.V.BALAGOPAL, MAYA CHANDRAN
The judiciary must safeguard religious properties from fraudulent claims, ensuring inquiry under appropriate legal provisions when encroachment is alleged.
Headnote:
Property - Devaswom Institutions - Article 226 - CPC Sections 92, Order XXIII Rule 3A - The court emphasized the necessity of protecting religious properties from encroachment and fraud, mandating the District Judge to inquire into the encroachments on Devaswom property, as directed by the Apex Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, devotees of a temple, sought a writ of mandamus compelling the District Judge to consider their petition regarding encroachment on Devaswom property. The temple's properties were allegedly usurped through fraudulent documents by the seventh respondent and others.
Issues: Whether the District Judge is required to conduct an inquiry on the petitioners' grievances concerning alleged encroachments on Devaswom property and whether the provisions of law relating to the protection of such properties were properly considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that the judiciary has a role in protecting the properties of Devaswom institutions and can intervene where allegations of fraud or collusion arise regarding authority over these properties.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, directing the District Judge to conduct an inquiry on the petitions filed.
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioners, who are the devotees of Lord Shiva of Naduvathur Shiva Temple in Keezhariyoor Village in Kozhikode District, which is a controlled institution under the 4th respondent Malabar Devaswom Board, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent District Judge, Kozhikode to consider Ext.P3 petition dated 10.03.2022 and submit a report before this Court, after conducting an enquiry, in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court inMrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667]. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Devaswom property is having an extend of 2.57 acres, comprised in Resurvey Nos.26/2B, 26/2 and 10/8 of Keezhariyoor Village. Certain extend of Devaswom property is encroached by the 7th respondent and others by creating bogus and sham documents.
2. On 04.05.2022, when this writ petition came up for admission, notice was ordered to respondents 5 to 7, through speed post. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated
01.07.2022, producing therewith various documents including Ext.R7(A) purchase certificate 10.02.1976 issued by the Land Tribunal, Meladi. The document marked as Ext.R7(D) is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.25 of 2022 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Koyilandy, which is one filed by Naduvathur Shiva Temple and others, against the 7th respondent herein and also the Executive Officer of Naduvathur Shiva Temple for recovery of possession of plaint B and C scheduled Devaswom properties.
4. The 4th respondent Malabar Devaswom Board has also filed a counter affidavit dated 11.10.2022, wherein, it is sated that all efforts have been taken to protect the Devaswom properties.
5. The petitioners have filed reply affidavits to the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent and also that filed by the 7th respondent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and also the 6th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 8th respondent. Though the petitioners have filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, seeking an order to implead the Executive Officer of Naduvathur Shiva Temple and also Naduvathur Shiva Kshethra Samrakshana Samithi as additional respondents 8 and 9, service of notice is not complete on the additional 9th respondent sought to be impleaded. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, completion of service of notice on the additional 9th respondent is dispensed with and I.A.No.1 of 2022 is allowed as prayed for. Registry to carry out necessary correction in the cause title.
7. ’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]
8. InA.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 ‘fences 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.
9. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the fac
