Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Orders Survey of Konnamkulangara Temple Land Amid Encroachment Dispute

Ernakulam, Kerala – The High Court of Kerala, in a significant judgment addressing alleged encroachment of temple property, has directed the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) of the Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct a survey and identify the boundaries of land belonging to the Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple. The Bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil K. Narendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Girish , delivered the judgment on March 4, 2024, while hearing two connected writ petitions concerning the temple land.

Background of the Litigations

The case brought before the High Court involved two writ petitions with conflicting claims over the Devaswom land:

WP(C) No. 4288 of 2023: Filed by devotees of the Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, including Mr. Rajendran K.B. They alleged that a substantial portion of the temple's 12.19 acres of land, situated in Kottuvalli Village, had been encroached upon by the Koonamavu St. Philomena’s Sadhu Jana Sangam (the 4th respondent) and others, leaving the temple with only about 1.40 acres. The petitioners sought court intervention for the removal of these encroachments and the demolition of a compound wall allegedly obstructing a traditional temple ritual, ' Bhagavathy Varavelppu '.

WP(C) No. 15507 of 2023: Filed by the Koonamavu St. Philomina’s Sadhu Jana Sanghom. This petition challenged a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board, which directed the Sanghom to demolish the aforementioned compound wall to facilitate the temple's 'Theyyat Festival'. The Sanghom claimed to have purchased the land in 1969, possessed relevant documents like tax receipts and an encumbrance certificate, and had obtained a building permit for the wall, along with an injunction against Mr. Rajendran .

Court's Emphasis on Protecting Devaswom Properties

The High Court, in its judgment, extensively referenced established legal principles concerning the protection of properties belonging to deities and religious institutions. The court underscored the term ' Devaswom ' itself, meaning "property of God."

Key precedents cited included:

A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]: The Supreme Court held that properties of deities, temples, and Devaswom Boards must be protected by their trustees and authorities. It warned that "acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly," and affirmed the duty of courts to safeguard such properties.

Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]: A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court reiterated that the High Court acts as the guardian of the Deity under its parens patriae jurisdiction and can investigate complaints regarding the loss of temple properties.

Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838]: This Full Bench decision highlighted the government's visitorial power to prevent fraud and redress abuses in the management of religious institutions, including canceling improvident transfers of Devaswom property.

Nandakumar v. District Collector [2018 (2) KHC 58]: Emphasized that the remedy to retrieve encroached Devaswom property is through the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, and that titles like 'pattayam' secured without Devaswom involvement may not confer legitimate rights.

Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 789]: The Supreme Court's directive for District Judges to examine grievances related to shrine management, including asset protection, and report to High Courts for consideration as PILs.

Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KLT 541]: This decision detailed the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, exemptions for temple lands, and the procedures Land Tribunals must follow, including impleading Devaswom Boards, when dealing with claims on such lands.

The court observed, quoting A.A. Gopalakrishnan : > "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. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of ‘fence eating the crops’ should be dealt with sternly."

Key Directives from the High Court

After considering the submissions and legal precedents, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:

Survey and Demarcation: The Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board (additional 5th respondent), is to finalize the survey and identification of the boundaries of the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple.

Timeframe: This process must be completed within three months from the receipt of the judgment copy.

Procedure: The survey must be conducted after affording the petitioners in both writ petitions and other affected parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims, and with due notice to them. The Tahsildar is to take note of the law laid down in the cited decisions.

Status Quo: The existing status quo order concerning the disputed compound wall shall continue until the survey is finalized.

Temple Rituals: The religious customary practices connected with the annual festival of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple are to be conducted without any obstruction.

Survey Records: If survey records are not available with the District Survey Superintendent (additional 6th respondent), they are to be obtained from the State Archives via the Director of Archives (additional 7th respondent), upon request by the Special Tahsildar.

Action Taken Report: The Travancore Devaswom Board is directed to file an action taken report before the learned Ombudsman within three months.

Ombudsman's Role: The Ombudsman is empowered to file reports before the High Court if further directions are deemed necessary.

A copy of the judgment and writ petitions will be communicated to the learned Ombudsman for information and necessary action.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's proactive role in protecting the properties of religious and charitable institutions. By ordering a time-bound survey and involving multiple authorities, the High Court aims to bring clarity to the ownership and extent of the Konnamkulangara Temple land, thereby addressing the long-standing dispute and ensuring the preservation of Devaswom assets. The decision also underscores the importance of adhering to due process and established legal principles in matters involving temple properties.