Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for summary eviction of alleged encroachers from private temple properties, as such matters fall under civil court jurisdiction and require the impleadment of necessary temple authorities for proper adjudication.

COMMON JUDGMENT

W.P.(C) Nos.25175/2020, 25014/2021, 42061/2022, 4568, 12581, 16048, 20146, 20698, 23974, 29530 & 36697 of 2023 and 1814, 25867 & 1756 of 2024 Dated this the 6th day of April, 2026 K. V. Jayakumar, J.

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The grievance highlighted in all these Writ Petitions, in brief, is that the immovable properties of various temples were encroached by the party respondents. The official respondents are the revenue officials and the District Judges having jurisdiction.

3. The issues of fact and law involved in all these Writ Petitions are common and therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 25175 of 2020 is taken as the lead case. The parties and exhibits are hereinafter referred to as in that Writ Petition, unless otherwise specified.

4. Sri. Krishnaraj, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, submitted that the revenue records, like settlement registers as well as the BTRs, would clearly indicate that the properties belong to the temples, but the revenue officials, the District Collector and his subordinates, are not taking any steps to remove the party respondents who have encroached into the temple land. 

5. Smt. Resmi A., the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 42061/2022, 4568/2023, 12581/2023, 16048/2023 and 29530/2023, advanced contentions similar to those advanced in the connected cases.

6. The learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in A.A Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom B oard a nd Others 1, 2007 (4) KLT 965 and submitted that the p roperties of the deities are to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. The learned counsel submitted that once there is an entrustment of property as Devaswom property, it would always remain as Devaswom property. Further, it is submitted that ‘Devaswom’ means the property of the deity.

7. The learned counsel would further argue that the deity being a perpetual minor, the property once entrusted to the deity cannot be taken back by executing any documents. The learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment in Nandakumar v. District Collector 2, 2018 (1) KLT 1019 in support of their argument. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Government as well as the courts are legally bound to protect the interests of the deity who is a perpetual minor. According to the learned counsels, this Court has got ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interest of the deity. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court dated 05/07/2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018, Mrinalini Padhy v. Union of India 3, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 667 wherein the Apex Court held that the protection of assets of the shrines, irrespective of the religion, is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also  for the Courts.

9. The learned counsel has pointed out that the revenue officials are not taking