Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. B. Suresh Kumar, J
V N NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/2812/2015
Religious Services - Temple Management - Land Conservancy Act - Writ Petition Challenge - The court interpreted the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act and directives from the Supreme Court regarding unauthorized constructions on public lands, directing the removal of encroachments by both parties involved in the dispute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, representing a temple, alleges that the tenth respondent has constructed an unauthorized temple in government land adjacent to their temple. The petitioner seeks directions for the removal of these structures and claims misrepresentation of religious services.
Finding of the Court:
Both the petitioner and the tenth respondent were found to have encroached upon government land. The court noted the lack of specific evidence on when the structures were erected but determined that recent constructions were in violation of the Supreme Court's directives regarding public land.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the tenth respondent's construction of a temple on government land constituted an unlawful encroachment and if the petitioner’s temple also had similar unauthorized structures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that both parties had encroached upon public land, making such constructions liable for removal under the Land Conservancy Act. It supported its decision by referencing the Supreme Court's directive against constructions for religious purposes on public spaces.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority to remove the unauthorized structures constructed by both parties on public land.
J U D G M E N T
This is an unusual litigation where the petitioner who is representing a Temple is complaining of the alleged conduct of the tenth respondent who is representing another temple in passing off religious services as those of the temple which the petitioner is representing. Though the aforesaid is the real dispute, the relief sought in the writ petition being an entirely different one namely a direction to the respondents to remove the unauthorized structures constructed by the tenth respondent in Government lands, it is unnecessary to delve into the real dispute between the petitioner and the tenth respondent for the disposal of the writ petition.
2. In the context of the relief sought in the writ petition, the facts relevant are the following: The petitioner is the president of Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swamy Temple (Chelamattom Temple) located on the banks of Periyar river. 52 cents of land lying adjacent to the Chelamattom Temple belonged to Thozhelil family. When the said property was partitioned among the sharers, an extent measuring 2 cents located close to the river, stated to be an extent of excess land in the possession of the family, was set apart as a place of worship for the members of the family. The case of the petitioner is that the tenth respondent, a member of the Thozhelil family pretends that there exists a Bhagavathi Temple in the said 2 cents and formed a trust in the year 2010 for managing the affairs of that temple. It is alleged by the petitioner that after forming the trust, the tenth respondent has trespassed into the adjoining river puramboke on the banks of river and constructed a new temple and allied structures. It is alleged that the tenth respondent has also installed a contribution box for the newly constructed temple in the nearby public road. It is also the case of the petitioner that Chelamattom Temple is a place where devotees throng for performing oblation for the departed souls and the attempt of the tenth respondent is to mislead the devotees of the Chelamattom Temple for diverting them for performance of the aforesaid ritual in the temple constructed by him. It is stated by the petitioner that the tenth respondent has established the temple and ancillary structures in the river puramboke without obtaining permission of the District Administration in terms of Ext.P4 guidelines issued by the State Government. It is alleged by the petitioner that though he has preferred several complaints before the District Administration and competent authorities under the Land Conservancy Act for removal of the encroachments made by the tenth respondent, they are not acted upon. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions to respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorized constructions made by the tenth respondent in the river puramboke as also the contribution box erected by him in the nearby panchayat road.
3. The stand taken by the tenth respondent in the counter affidavit filed by him is that he has not erected any permanent structure in the river purampoke, and the Bhagavathi Temple is situated in the registered land adjoining to the river puramboke. It is, however, conceded that a few temporary structures have been constructed by him in the river puramboke so as to enable the devotees of the temple to perform oblation for the departed souls. It is pointed out by the tenth respondent that such temporary sheds have been erected by Chelamattom Temple also in the river puramboke adjacent to that temple for facilitating performance of the aforesaid religious ritual. The tenth respondent has produced along with his counter affidavit the report and sketches prepared by the concerned Village Officer on the complaint of the petitioner as Ext.R10(h).
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar, stating, among others that the complaint has been enquired into and it was found that the tenth respondent has enclosed to his possession 20.35 Ares of river pura
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
