A private temple does not acquire public status without dedication and public worship rights.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for police protection to demolish a structure, which earlier housed a private temple from which the deity was removed after due rituals.

2. Petitioner is the owner of 219 Ares of property in Resurvey No.20 of Block No.52 of Aluva West Village, apart from 194 Ares in Resurvey No.30 of Block No.53 of the same village. These properties belonging to the petitioner are stated to be lying as a single compact plot bounded on all sides by compound walls. The said property was purchased in the year 1953 and a textile mill was established. Subsequently, after a change of management of the textile mill in the year 1972, petitioner constructed a small building and installed a deity converting the building into a private temple. Petitioner asserts that no member of the public were permitted to worship and nor was any public fund collected or ever contributed for the construction or installation of deity at any point in time. The premises of the factory being within the confines of a compound wall and gate, there was total restriction of entry for any outsiders.

3. Petitioner alleges that in 1997, the management closed down textile mill and conduct of poojas and rituals became irregular in the temple. Over a period of time, various buildings in the compound were demolished and except for few dilapidated structures, nothing remains in the property other than the building where the temple was in existence. Subsequently, when astrological consultations revealed that the adverse circumstances undergone by the petitioner was on account of the spiritual distress of the deity, it was recommended to remove the same after performing the requisite rituals. Thereafter, in April 2025, pursuant to the advice of the astrologer, the required rituals and poojas were conducted as evident from Ext.P4 and the idol was removed. Later the idol was immersed in sea in accordance with Hindu rituals after the divine essence of the deity was invoked into a gold amulet and presented as an offering to the Pazhavanangadi Ganapathi Temple at Thiruvananthapuram.

4. While so, the petitioner took steps to demolish the building which housed the idol earlier and engaged a construction company to undertake the demolition work. However, on 28.10.2025, when the contractor arrived to carryout the demolition, the 6^th respondent allegedly trespassed into the property and started obstructing the work. When the petitioner requested the police for assistance, due to the ensuing local body elections, petitioner was asked to delay the demolition work. Recently, when the petitioner attempted to restart the demolition works, respondents 4 to 6 started to raise objections and obstructed the same. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the first and second respondents for their assistance and necessary protection. Since adequate protection has not been granted petitioner has approached this Court.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 6 contending that the Ganapathi temple situated inside the property of the petitioner is older than the petitioner's management and that the devotees from the locality as well as the Chembakassery family used to conduct regular poojas and other rituals until January, 2025. It was also stated that the idol installed in the temple was consecrated as per Hindu religious rites and it became a juristic person under law and therefore the temple cannot be treated as a mere removable structure at the whims and fancies of the petitioner who has no right to demolish or interfere with the deity. The respondents furthe