Writ Petition dismissed due to alternate remedy available under Section 102 of Kerala Land Reforms Act concerning property title disputes.

JUDGMENT

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging Exts.P5 and P6 Purchase Certificates dated 20.08.1985 with respect to 20.807 Cents of land in Survey No.304/16-1 and 26.193 Cents of land in Survey No.304/16-1 of Elanji Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk.

2. The Petitioner No.1 is a Hindu Idol by name ‘Pazhumthuruth Mahadevan’, represented by a Devotee. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are Devotees of the temple and Petitioner No.4 is an Association formed for the purpose of protecting the affairs of the temple. The allegation in the Writ Petition is that the jenmam rights of the properties covered by Exts.P5 and P6 Purchase Certificates stand in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and without impleading the correct landlord, Exts.P5 and P6 Purchase Certificates were obtained.

3. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Sri.T.Krishnanunni, instructed by Adv. Sri. R. Pradeep and the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting Respondent Nos.5 and 6, Sri. S. Sreekumar, instructed by Adv. Sri. P. Martin Jose.

4. The averments in the Writ Petition are to the effect that the property having an extent of 1 Acre 5 Cents in Survey No. 264/7 and 91 Cents in Survey No. 265/3 of Elanji Village belongs to “Pazhumthuruthu Dewasom”. The Petitioners produced documents to prove the title of the said properties in Survey Nos.264/7 and 265/3 to substantiate the point that the Purchase Certificates with respect to the said properties could not be issued without notice to the Petitioner No.1.

5. After the filing of the Writ Petition, the Petitioners understood that the properties covered by Exts.P5 and P6 do not come within the aforesaid Survey numbers. When the Petitioners realized that Exts.P5 and P6 Purchase Certificates relate to the property in Survey No.304/16-1, the Petitioners filed I.A. No.14512/2017 and I.A. No.14955/2017 for rectifying the mistakes producing the documents relating to the properties covered by Survey No.304/16-1.

6. It is seen from the proceedings that I.A. No.14512/2017 (renumbered as I.A. No.1/2017) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh application as per the Order dated 25.06.2025, since the Petitioners submitted that a mistake had crept into the said I.A. Thereafter, the Petitioners have filed I.A. No.1 of 2025 for amendment and I.A. No.2 of 2025 to receive additional documents.

7. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners is that it is clear from the records produced by the Petitioners that the properties covered by Exts.P5 and P6 stood in the name of the Devaswom. It is clear from Exts.R5(c) and R5(d), which are the full versions of Exts.P5 and P6 Certificates, that the Certificates were obtained without impleading the Devaswom. Even though the contesting Respondents claim that the persons who are shown as landlords in Exts.P5 and P6, have got title over the properties, the documents would show that they did not derive any title for the same.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the contesting Respondents contended that the Purchase Certificates are of the year 1985. The Writ Petition was filed only in the year 2016. As per the averments in the Writ Petition, the Petitioners are referring to a property which is not covered by Exts.P5 and P6. The Petitioners have not explained the long delay in questioning the Purchase Certificates. Even if the Devaswom is not a party to those Purchase Certificates, the Devaswom can very well maintain Appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 , if the delay involved therein is sufficiently explained. No reason is made out for entert