P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. This case has a long history and several rounds of litigations have already been pursued before different fora, namely the civil court, this court, as well as the Apex Court in relation to the encroachment over the property belonging to the Devaswom by the persons concerned, who are in the party array as additional respondents 5 onwards. The D.B.P. came to be registered on 15.03.2012, referring to the above facts and figures and the further action to be taken to cause the property belonging to the Devaswom to be recovered by invoking appropriate steps including the Land Conservancy Act and also to protect and preserve the temple compound and the property.

2. Heard Smt. S. Karthika, learned counsel appearing for the complainant who preferred the complaint before the Ombudsman, learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the additional fourth respondent-the District Collector, who was suo motu impleaded in the party array.

3. The sequence of events reveals that, the Devaswom property came to be encroached by some persons and they attempted to cut and remove the trees standing in the property of the Karikode Sastha and Mahavishnu Temple under Cochin Devaswom Board, when some of the devotees filed CDB No. 3 of 1996 before this court with reference to the objectionable act being pursued in Survey No. 1042/2. After hearing both the sides this Court arrived at a specific finding as to the genuineness of the grievance projected by the party and in turn, directing the respondents concerned to take necessary steps to take back the possession of 21 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1042/2. This was to the chagrin of the occupants (Madhavi Warassiyar and Others), who sought to challenge the same by approaching the Supreme Court. The case filed before the Apex Court came to be dismissed, affirming the verdict passed by this court to take back the possession of the property in Survey No. 1042/2, however, leaving it open to the parties who approached the Supreme Court to move the Civil Court, if at all, they were having any right with regard to the title, ownership and possession over the property in Survey No. 1042/2. Based on the verdict passed by the Supreme Court, the CDB came to be closed as per the orders passed by this court on 9.9.1998. By virtue of the liberty granted by the Apex Court to move the Civil Court, the aforesaid parties approached the Sub Court, Ernakulam by filing O.S. No. 399 of 1998 for declaration of their title over 21 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1042/2 of Mulanthuruthy Village and for such other reliefs.

4. When the matter was pending consideration, a proposal was moved from the part of the plaintiffs to the effect that, in place of the aforesaid 21 cents of land in Survey No. 1042/2 which was ordered to be taken over, they were ready to surrender an extent of 30 cents in Survey No. 1043, situated nearby, asserting that they are the absolute owners of the said property, having exclusive possession and enjoying the same with clear and marketable title. It was also pointed out that they had already obtained 'purchase certificate' from the competent authority with regard to the said property. Pointing out that the request was pending consideration before the Cochin Devaswom Board and that no decision was taken, they approached this court by filing O.P. No. 20251 of 2000 to cause the said matter to be considered. The above original petition was disposed of by this court on 27.7.2000, directing the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the proposal. Based on the said direction, the matter was considered by the Cochin Devaswom Board, who passed a resolution on 29.8.2000, accepting the proposal to have the properties exchanged, in turn to have the issue/dispute settled by a compromise. It was accordingly, that a compromise petition was preferred before the Sub Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 399 of 1998 and based on th