Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 77632
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
T.P.Kunhambhu Nair – Appellant
Versus
Sub Collector/Sub-Divisional Magistrate – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4353 OF 2022 | WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Suresh Kumar Kodoth, K.P. Antony, Binu
For the Respondents: R.Krishna Raj, E.S.Soni, Government Pleader
Court enforces civil rights protection for religious properties and access pathways, emphasizing the need for civil court resolutions where disputes arise.
Headnote:The present judgment addresses two writ petitions concerning land rights and obstruction to pathways. Regarding WP
(C) No.18027/2021, the court finds proceedings by official respondents against temple property unauthorized and contrary to the Supreme Court's directives. It quashes orders allowing such actions, emphasizing the necessity of civil court intervention on property status. In WP
(C) No.4353/2022, while recognizing potential blockage of access, the court advises petitioners to seek civil court remedies to establish rights over the pathway, acknowledging disputed claims. These decisions enforce protective measures for religious properties and outline legal channels for civil disputes.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims of property ownership by religious committee. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute over governmental authority in land conservancy. (Para 5 , 8) |
| 3. need for civil court intervention in land disputes. (Para 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. guidance for preventing obstruction to public access. (Para 9 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. I will first narrate the facts in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021.
2. The petitioner in this writ petition is the Nileswar Koottathilara Sree Vishnumoorthi Kshethra Managing Committee represented by its President. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 5 are proceeding against the property of Koottathilara Sree Vishnumoorthi, the deity of Kolari Bhooda Sthaanam. It is a property with an extent of 88 cents situated in Re.Sy.No.20/4 of Nileswaram Village. The grievance is that, the official respondents are treating this property as Puramboku and has initiated proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. The proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C is also initiated based on a complaint filed by party respondents 6 to 10 claiming right of way over the property of the deity. According to the petitioner, ignoring the directions of the Apex Court in the order dated 05.07.2018 in WP(C) No.649 of 2018, Exts.P2 and P9 orders were passed. It is the specific case of the petitioner that as per Ext.P2 there is a direction to take over the temple and the temple property itself. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“a. quash Exhibit.P-2 and P-9 by the issue or writ of certiorari or such other Writ or order or direction.
b. declare that the property having an extent of 88 Cents in resurvey no.20/4 of Nileswaram Village is the property belonging to the minor deity Sri Vishnu Moorthy of Kolari Bhoodasthaanam and consequently direct respondents 1 to 5 to protect and preserve the property of the minor deity by the issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction.” (Sic)
3. The case of the petitioners in WP(C) No.4353 of 2022 is different. According to them, their only access to their residential house is now blocked by the 3rd respondent Committee, which is the petitioner in the other case. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P5 report, the Tahsildar already found that there is a pathway and this is the only pathway available to the petitioners to access their residential property. It is also stated that the pathway is a motoroable one. But ignoring the same, the 1st respondent refused to entertain the application under Section 133 Cr.P.C as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 and other connected orders, WP(C)No.4353 of 2022 is filed with following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for records and quash Ext.P7, P9 and P12 declaring it to be illegal.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action for removal of unlawful obstruction from public way, as reported in Ext.P5, forthwith.
iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The counsel for the petitioners raised their contentions in their respective writ petitions. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the temple is situated in a Purambokku land. Actually Ext.P2 order in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021 was passed when the petitioner in that writ petition tried to cut and remove trees from the puramboku land. The Government Pleader contended that, if any civil right of the petitioners in these two writ petitions are violated, they have to approach the civil Court.
6. This Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioners and the Government Pleader. I peruse Exts.P2 and P9 orders in WP(C) No.18027 of 2021. In Ext.P2 order the Tahsildar (LR) passed an or
