Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 4835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
KALAPURAKKAL JOSE – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 21430 OF 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.), SHRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR, SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SMT.NISHA GEORGE
For the Respondents: SHRI.MOHAN C.MENON, ADV. S. RAJMOHAN, SR GP, SMT.R.RANJANIE, SC MDB, SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)
The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate property title disputes, rendering the order void.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to the order of the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board declaring petitions and documents as void for lack of authority. (Paras 10, 11, 31)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Commissioner - Commissioner exceeded authority by adjudicating title disputes, a matter reserved for civil courts. (Paras 30, 36)
Facts of the case:
- Petitioner claimed ownership of land through various documents and continuous possession. Disputes arose from claims by temple authorities regarding the property being part of temple land.
Findings of Court:
- The court found the Commissioner acted ultra vires in declaring documents void and usurped civil jurisdiction.
Issues: - Examined whether the Commissioner had the power to decide on title disputes regarding religious institution land.
Ratio Decidendi: - Commissioner lacks authority to adjudicate property titles, and an order issued without jurisdiction is null and void.
Result: - The impugned order of the Commissioner is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner claimed ownership based on registered documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by deciding title disputes. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 28 , 30) |
| 3. impugned order quashed; writ petition allowed. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P14 order passed by the 1st respondent, the Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board.
2. The petitioner, Kalappurakkal Jose, states that he is the owner of 80 cents of land in R.S. No. 44 (Old Survey No. 26) of Payyavoor Amsom and Desom. According to the petitioner, the property originally belonged to the erstwhile Jenmi, namely, Karakkattidam Tharavadu.
3. The petitioner further states that one Padinjareveetil Lakshmi and her daughter, who were in possession of the said property admeasuring 3.05 Acres had executed Ext.P1 registered Marupattom Deed No. 1771 of 1949 dated 02.09.1949 of S.R.O. Irikkur. Out of the total extent of 3.05 Acres, the said Lakshmi Marassiar had executed Ext.P2 registered sale deed in respect of One Acre of property to Kunhimangalam Veetil Devi Marassiar as per registered Sale Deed No. 2390/1961 of S.R.O. Irikkur.
4. The said Devi Marassiar died and her children executed Ext.P3 Partition Deed in the year 1980. As per Ext.P3 Partition Deed, Sri. Govinda Marar got his share in schedule Nos. 1 and 2 of the deed and Smt. Lakshmikutty got her share in schedule Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The writ petitioner purchased 80 cents of property from the said Govinda Marar and Lakshmikutty vide Exts.P4 and P5 sale deeds on 13.12.1985.
5. The petitioner further states that in the meanwhile, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Land Tribunal, Irikkur as S.M.P. No. 362/1976 (Ext.P7) and Ext.P6 purchase certificate was issued to the tenant.
6. The writ petitioner submits that he has been consistently remitting land revenue in respect of the subject property and has duly produced Ext.P8, the basic tax receipt, as evidence thereof. Furthermore, the petitioner has furnished Ext.P9, a possession certificate issued by the Village Officer concerned, to substantiate his continuous possession of the property.
7. The 2nd respondent, the Chairman of the Trustee Board, Payyavoor Temple, has raised certain disputes on the premise that 80 cents of land of the petitioner covered by Exts.P4 to P9 is a part of 3.13 Acres of Temple property. Thereafter, the Chairman of the Trustee Board has filed W.P.(C) No.16466/2006 before this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 10.07.2008 as per Ext.P10 judgment. In Ext.P10 judgment, a direction was issued to the Commissioner, HR&CE(Admn.) Department, Kozhikode (the 1st respondent therein), to take appropriate legal proceedings against the encroachers.
8. The Commissioner did not take final decision on the basis of Ext.P10 judgment for about four years. However, the construction of the residential building on the property was forcefully prevented by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the actions of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner submitted Ext.P11 representation dated 15.02.2010 before the Government, with a request to finalise the proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No. 127/2012. Ext.P12 is the judgment therein.
9. The petitioner further contends that in Ext.P12 judgment, a direction was issued to the 1st respondent, Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board to finalise the action pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment within an outer limit of eight months. Pursuant to Ext.P12 judgment, an opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner inspected the property and filed Ext.P13 report dated 04.03.2013.
10. The petitioner further states that as per Ext.P13 report, the property of the petitioner is lying separately, surrounded by physical boundaries on all sides and it could not be termed as part of the larger extent of 3.13 Acres of property as claimed by the 2nd respondent. As per Ext.P13 rep
