Courts have a duty to protect properties of religious institutions and ensure expedient proceedings.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

This review petition is listed before this Bench based on the order dated 11.12.2025 of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on the administrative side, whereby Registry was directed to place this review petition before the Bench on the judicial side, since no signed judgment is available in the case records and not uploaded in CMS, though as per the endorsement made in the order sheet and also on the docket of R.P.No.1021 of 2024, the said R.P. was disposed of on 27.09.2024, along with the connected review petition, i.e., R.P.No.1006 of 2024 arising out of the judgment dated 05.09.2024 in W.P.(C)No.28292 of 2024, by a Division Bench consisting of one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] with P.G. Ajithkumar, J, who had already demitted office. The order dated 27.09.2024 authored by P.G. Ajithkumar, J is available in the case records of R.P.No.1006 of 2024, which is also uploaded in CMS. However, due to an inadvertent omission, the number of R.P.No.1021 of 2024, which was also heard on 27.09.2024 along with R.P.No.1006 of 2024, was omitted to be mentioned in the order dated 27.09.2024. When it was noticed by Registry the matter was placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. In the above circumstances, the endorsement regarding the disposal of this review petition on 27.09.2024 is recalled. Registry to correct the status of R.P.No.1021 of 2024 in CMS appropriately.

2. We heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the petitioners-respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 4.

3. By the judgment dated 05.09.2024, W.P.(C)No.28292 of 2024 was disposed of with the directions contained in paragraph

7 of that judgment, which reads thus;

“7. In the light of the law laid down in the aforementioned decisions, respondent Nos.1 to 3 have the solemn duty to see that the property belonging to the Major Pathiyoor Kuttikulangra Sree Durga Devi Temple is resumed without inordinate delay. Therefore, while allowing this review petition to the extent mentioned above, respondents Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take steps to get the aforementioned appeal disposed of at the earliest and subject to the result of the appeal to take necessary action in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, expeditiously.”

4. By the order dated 27.09.2024, the connected review petition, i.e., R.P.No.1006 of 2024 was disposed of with the directions contained in paragraph 7 of that order. The order dated

27.09.2024 in R.P.No.1006 of 2024 is extracted hereunder;

“The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28292 of 2024 has filed this petition for reviewing the judgment under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 05.09.2024. The petitioner points out that number of the appeal pending before the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara, reckoning which the writ petition was disposed of, is wrong. The number of the appeal is A.S.No.44 of 2024 and not A.S.No.44 of 2023. Review of the judgment is sought for the said reason.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

3. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to expedite the proceedings in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 so as to resume the property of Major Pathiyoor Kuttikulangara Sree Durga Devi Temple said to have been trespassed upon by the 4^th respondent. As per Ext.P1, respondent No.2 decided to recover possession of 6.60 cents land belonging to the Temple in the possession of the 4^th respondent under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 .