The Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict encroachers from private temple lands, and Supreme Court directives regarding the protection of public religious institution properties do not apply to private temples not controlled by Devaswom Boards.

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner, Sri K.G. Vinu Raj, is a member of the Changamvelil family, which owns the Changamvelil Kudumba Kshetram. It is stated in the writ petition that the said temple owns 3.34 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos. 16/9A, 16/9B, and 16/1B of Pattanakkad Village. Out of the 3.34 acres of property, 4.5 cents were acquired for the purpose of the development of the National Highway. However, according to the petitioner, at present, the said temple is in possession of 10 cents of land only.

3. The petitioner asserts that remaining properties were encroached upon by respondents 10 to 29. As per Ext.P1 document bearing No. 1441 of 1095 ME, 3.34 acres of land had been set apart for the purpose of the family temple.

4. The petitioner herein approached the District Judge, Alappuzha and preferred the Original Petition seeking a direction to conduct an enquiry with respect to the encroachment of the property of the temple and to evict the encroachers. Ext.P23 is the true copy of the Original Petition. The said Original Petition was preferred in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court dated

05/07/2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018, Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 667

5. It is in the said backdrop, this writ petition is preferred seeking the following reliefs:

(a) Issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction to respondents 3 and 5 to consider and dispose of Ext. P21 filed under Section 36 and 37 of Travancore Cochin Religious Institutions Act and Ext. P-23 petition filed as permitted by the Apex Court in Ext. P-22 order and take appropriate action and file a report before this Court.

(b) Issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction to respondents 1 to 5 to take appropriate action to see that the encroachment of respondents 10 to 29 over the property having an extent of 3.29 ½ acres situated in Sy. No. 16/9-A, 16/9B and 16/1B of Pattanakkad village belong to the minor deity of Changamvelil Kudumba Kshetram is evicted.”

6. Sri. Krishnaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vast extent of the property of the temple has been encroached by the respondents 10 to 29. The learned counsel has pointed out that in view of the directions in Mrinalini Padhi (supra), the Principal District Judge is obliged to conduct an enquiry with respect to the encroachment in all the religious institutions of the state and to submit a report before the High Court. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the learned District Judge, Alappuzha, to dispose of the Original Petition filed by him.

7. Adv. G. Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board and Adv. Reshmi K.M., Senior Government Pleader, would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as the temple is a private temple and the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict the encroachers of a private temple.

8. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Krishnaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Reshmi K.M., Senior Government Pleader, Sri. G.

Biju, the learned counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

9. From among the rival submissions, the following questions arise for our consideration:

(i) Whether the directives issued in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) are applicable to private temples which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Boards?

(ii) Whether the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act could be invoked to evict an occupant of a property belong to a private temple ?

10. In Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector, Kottayam, 2026 KHC OnLine