The Kerala Land Conservancy Act does not permit summary eviction in the presence of bona fide title disputes, requiring civil adjudication for property rights conflicts.

J U D G M E N T

[WP(C) Nos.23246/2020 & 21102/2020]

W.P.(C) No.21102 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No.23246 of 2020 are filed by two devotees of the Vadakkumnathan Temple, Thrissur. Essentially, the prayer in these Writ Petitions is for issuance of directions to the official respondents to retrieve the properties having an extent of 45 cents in Sy. No. 463, 49 cents in Sy. No. 464 and 0.0518 cents in Sy. No. 2974 of Thrissur Village. According to the petitioner, the above properties have been encroached upon by the private respondents by creating invalid documents and neither the Devaswom nor the Board is taking measures to protect the said property.

2. For the sake of ease and clarity, parties and exhibits shall be referred to as described in W.P.(C) No. 23246 of 2020 unless otherwise stated. The brief facts of the case are as under:

a) The property having an extent of 45 cents and falling in Sy. No.463 belongs to the Vadakkumnathan Devaswom as per the Settlement Register of Thrissur Taluk.

b) The property having an extent of 49 cents and falling in Sy. No.464 is shown in the ownership of Komattil Kalyani Narayaniyamma. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid property is also owned by the Vadakkumnathan Devaswom. To substantiate the same, reference is made to Ext.P1 Settlement register issued by the Village Officer, Thrissur.

c) It is stated that the property having an extent of 0.0518 cents falling in Sy.No. 2974 of Thrissur Village also belongs to the Vadakkumnathan Devaswom. To substantiate the same reference is made to Ext.P2 BTR.

c) The petitioner asserts that as per Sale Deed No. 1675/1976, a deed was executed by a certain Bhagirathy Ammal, W/o. Late Sri. T.A.Naganatha Iyer, in favour of a) K.J.George, b) K.P.Mohan, and c) Achamma John. In the said document, it has been stated that the property in Sy.No. 463 and 2974 are enjoyed under leasehold right from Vadakkumnathan Devaswom for a term of one year and the annual rent is 75 paise. The petitioner asserts that the leaseholder will not have the right to sell the property to any other person as the term of lease expired after one year. It is further stated that sale deed No.1677 of Thrissur Sub Registry was executed by Smt. T.N.Parvathi in favour of a) K.J.George, b) K.P.Mohan, and c) Achamma John. In the said document, it has been mentioned specifically that the properties in Sy. No. 463 is held by the seller as Verumpattam (leasehold right) under Vadakkumnathan Devaswom and the rest of the properties are held as Pandaravaka. A perusal of the document reveals that the person who was claiming to be holding the property of the deity on lease, sold the property to others. It is contended that Smt. Parvathy had no saleable right over the property of the deity and hence, the sale deed is invalid. According to the petitioner, the respondents 8 to 10 obtained possession over the properties and despite this fact being known to the Devaswom authorities, no action whatsoever was taken to recover the property falling in the above Survey numbers. It is stated that Sale Deed No. 1681/1976 dated 17.05.1976 of the Thrissur S.R.O., Sale Deed No.1682/1976 of the Thrissur SRO and Sale Deed No.1693/1976 of the Thrissur SRO, were executed in favour of the purchasers and in those documents it is specifically mentioned that the plots in Sy. Nos. 463 and 2974 are enjoyed under leasehold rights from Vadakkumnathan Devaswom and the annual rent was 75 paise.

4. It is further stated that a release deed vide No. 1387/1983 dated 12.04.1983 was executed by Sri.K.J.George and others in favour of Sri. K.Mohan Paul. In the said document, it has been mentioned that Sri.K.Mohan Paul can apply for Patta. It is contended that the individuals who had exec