Case Law
Subject : Property Law - Religious Property
Kochi, Kerala – In a recent judgment, a division bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S., addressed a writ petition concerning a land dispute involving the Sree Anthimahakalan Vishnu Temple in Palakkad district. The petitioners, devotees of the temple, sought to quash a purchase certificate issued in 1977 and subsequent proceedings related to land tax acceptance, arguing encroachment on Devaswom land.
The writ petition, WP(C) NO. 30451 of 2015, was filed by Pradeep P and Viswanathan, devotees concerned about the reduction of temple land from 28 acres to 2.98 acres due to alleged encroachments. They challenged Ext.P1, a purchase certificate dated 30.12.1977, issued by the Land Tribunal, Ottapalam, in favor of the mother of the 9th respondent, and Ext.P3, proceedings dated 29.10.2014, by the Sub Collector, Ottapalam, allowing land tax acceptance from the 9th respondent. The petitioners claimed the land in question belonged to the Sree Anthimahakalan Vishnu Temple, a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board.
The 9th respondent, later represented by legal heirs (respondents 11-13), contended that the purchase certificate was legally obtained under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They argued their family had been tenants on the land for generations and that the statutory remedy to challenge the purchase certificate was an appeal under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.
The High Court, after hearing both sides and considering precedents, underscored the paramount importance of protecting Devaswom properties. The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] and Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] , reiterating the courts' duty to safeguard religious institutions' assets from wrongful claims.
The court quoted A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board : "the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession."
Furthermore, referencing Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541] , the court highlighted that the Kerala Land Reforms Act is a self-contained code regarding tenancy rights and land purchase, emphasizing the procedural requirements for obtaining purchase certificates.
Ultimately, the High Court declined to quash the purchase certificate and the Sub Collector's proceedings in the writ petition. Instead, the bench directed the petitioners and the hereditary trustee of the temple (impleaded as the 10th respondent) to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Palakkad.
The court also instructed the District Collector, Palakkad, to locate the files related to the 1977 purchase certificate within two months, facilitating access for all parties to obtain certified copies for the appeal process. The interim order issued by the court on 07.10.2015, preventing any waste on the property and registration of transactions, will remain in effect until the appellate authority makes a decision.
This judgment underscores the High Court's commitment to protecting Devaswom land while also directing parties to adhere to established statutory frameworks for resolving land disputes. The emphasis on utilizing the appellate mechanism within the Kerala Land Reforms Act provides a clear pathway for addressing grievances related to land ownership and purchase certificates in such cases.
#KeralaHighCourt #DevaswomLand #LandReformsAct #KeralaHighCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.