The court emphasized that temple premises are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal under Section 3(1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, nullifying any resulting assignments.

O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair, J.

These three cases are on a common issue and therefore they have been heard together and are disposed of accordingly. The core question is regarding the legality of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the property of a Temple administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board as per which purchase certificate was issued to a party.

2. First we will refer to D.B.P.No.21/2009 which is a suo motu proceedings initiated based on TDB - Report No.51 of 2009 in Complaint No.105 of 2008, submitted by the learned Ombudsman appointed for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. After considering the report this Court issued notice and the contesting party respondent is additional fourth respondent. The first respondent is the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram, the second respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Revenue (Devaswom) Department and the third respondent is the Secretary, Temple Advisory Committee, Sree Dharmasastha Temple, Ezhumuttam.

3. The report was submitted pursuant to complaint No.105/2008 filed by the third respondent, viz. the Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee. The substance of the allegation therein is that the Temple owned 2.26 acres of land as per the land register and settlement register and except 25 cents, the rest is in the possession of the fourth respondent, illegally and steps will have to be taken to get back the property. The learned Ombudsman addressed a letter to the District Collector, Idukki requesting to conduct an enquiry through the Tahsildar to find out the details. The Temple comes within Thrikkariyoor Group in Thodupuzha Sub Group under the Travancore Devaswom Board (for short 'the Board'). The Tahsildar informed the learned Ombudsman that in respect of the disputed land, one Velayudhan Nair Narayanan Nair, the father of the fourth respondent was given purchase certificate. It was also reported that there is no document in the Devaswom office to show that the property was given to the said Narayanan Nair and about his leasehold right.

4. Annexure I submitted along with the report is another detailed report submitted by the Land Special Officer of the Board, who was also directed by the learned Ombudsman to look into the complaint. The detailed report submitted by him refers to the entire history of the Temple and the alleged illegalities in issuing the purchase certificate. One of the points mentioned in the report is that the land is exempted under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), being premises of the Temple and thus the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue the purchase certificate. It is also reported that a suo motu proceedings as S.M.P.No.84/1977 was got booked by the Land Tribunal, based on a report by the Special Village Officer. It was finalised within a short span and that the Land Tribunal had ordered the assignment illegally and the tenancy claimed is a false one. Shri Narayanan Nair had filed an earlier O.A. No.234/1970 seeking assignment of the landlord's right in respect of the very same property, which was not seen granted. Learned Ombudsman therefore recommended for settlement of the matter by this Court, since various issues arise for consideration.

5. The fourth respondent has filed counter affidavits and the third respondent Temple Advisory Committee and the first respondent have also filed their respective affidavits.

6. C.R.P.Nos.256/2011 and 257/2011 are filed by the Board as petitioner, aggrieved by the orders passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority (LR), Alappuzha dismissing the appeal filed from the order issuing purchase certificate and I.A.No.30/2010 filed for condoning the delay, that too without hearing the Board, who was the appellant therein. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, allegedly without hearing the appellant and the respondent thus without giving a chance to address