The court held that the lack of evidence and compliance with procedural requirements precludes relief under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.

The petitioner states that he is a former president of the Upadesaka Samithi of the Erinjil Bhagavathi Kshetram, situated at Thrissur. According to the petitioner, certain properties falling in Survey No. 66 of Ollukara Village in Thrissur Taluk stand in the name of Kuttanellur Devaswom. He asserts that sometime in 2012, in his capacity as president of the Upadesaka Samithi of the Erinjil Bhagavathi Kshetram, he approached this Court with a prayer directing the revenue authorities as well as the Devaswom to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover the property encroached upon by certain respondents. The petitioner contends that the Writ Petition was heard by this Court and, by judgment dated 23.07.2018 in WP(C) No. 8352 of 2012, this Court disposed of the matter. This Court directed the petitioner to approach the Special Tahsildar attached to the Cochin Devaswom Board, and the said authority was instructed to consider the grievance and pass orders after hearing all parties.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that, although the judgment was placed before the Special Tahsildar, no action as directed by this Court was initiated. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:

" (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to immediately take steps in terms of Exts P2; to comply with the procedure to carry out site inspection, if at measurements is warranted to have the same and to remove all illegal encroachments on Devaswom land, within specified time limits, in the interest of justice."

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that in Ext. P2 judgment dated 23.07.2018, this Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board, and file a proper application by producing all relevant materials and documents and directions were issued for the Special Tahsildar to consider the grievance upon submission of such representation. It is stated that no relevant documents or materials were submitted by the petitioner before the Special Tahsildar. Further, it is stated that the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 , cannot be initiated as the provisions would not apply to the property in question. It is stated that the Special Tahsildar considered the question of whether the property in question belonged to the temple or to the Devaswom and, consequently, whether any action under the , could be initiated.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Special Tahsildar, it is stated that the Erinjil Bhagavathi Temple under the Kuttanellur Devaswom is not an incorporated institution, but only a controlled institution of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Referring to Section 62A of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Act, 1990 , relating to Devaswom properties, and Section 62B of the Act, regarding the applicability of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 to unassigned lands of Devaswoms under the Board, it is stated that the 4th respondent is not competent or empowered by law to invoke the provisions of the . It is further stated that this fact has been intimated to the petitioner, and he was advised to seek appropriate remedies before the competent authorities.

5. Counter-affidavits have also been filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, reiterating their title and possession over the property in question. According to them, the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has not placed proper materials before the Special Tahsildar, as directed in the earlier judgment.

6. We have heard, Sri. G. Sreekumar