Bindu Nair v. State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.9610 OF 2024 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` BINDU NAIR AGED 47 YEARS W/O K.P ANIL KUMAR, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKUZHI P.O, THALAVADI VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT PNPWA-144 PANDAVATHU ROAD, MARADU P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682304 ``` ``` BY ADVS.JOSEPH GEORGE BIJO THOMAS GEORGE P.A.REJIMON NIKITA NAIR C.S. SAJEEV JOHN T. VIVEKJOS PUTHUKULANGARA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 THE SUB COLLECTOR (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER)THIRUVALLA OFFICE OF RDO, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689102`** ``` 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER-THALAVADI VILLAGE OFFICE, THALAVADI P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 689572 ``` ``` 4 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 ``` 2 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 ``` 5 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LAND CONSERVANCY SECTION, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003 ``` ``` R1 TO R3 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; R4 & R5 BY SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL - TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass a speaking order on Ext.P5 appeal, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, challenging Ext.P4 order dated 25.10.2023 of the 5[th] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner has also sought for a similar relief in respect of Ext.P6 stay petition filed along with Ext.P5 appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 4 and 5. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P4 order dated 25.10.2023 of the 5[th] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), invoking the provisions under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, is now pending consideration before the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, along with 4 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 ## Ext.P6 stay petition. 4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in case Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner is in order and the same is pending consideration, the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 5. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536]** . 6. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that 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. 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. The Government, 5 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 7. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan** , on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the 6 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was 7 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 8. In **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** the Apex Court emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions. The relevant principles under the Hindu law will show that the Deity is always treated similar to that of a minor and there are some points of similarity between a minor and a Hindu idol. The High Court therefore is the guardian of the Deity and apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of _parens patriae_ will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss of properties of the Temple itself, the truth of the 8 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. 9. In **Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** the Division Bench relied on the decision in **Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838]** , wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country 9 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated **Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209]** it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contentions of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non- 10 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 feasance of a trustee. 10. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector and others [2018 (2) KHC 58]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘ _parens patriae_ ’ jurisdiction in **Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132]** . In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without the involvement of the Devaswom, securing ‘pattayam’ or such other deeds, the same cannot confer any right upon the parties concerned, unless the title so derived is clear in all respects. There cannot be any dispute that the remedy to retrieve such property belonging to the Devaswom is by resorting to the course stipulated in the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 11. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549]** a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and 11 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court in **A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482]** . Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No.1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the ‘ _parens patriae_ ’ jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard, there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected. 12. In **Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others [2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541]** a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a party, noticed that in view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, nothing in Chapter II (i.e., provisions regarding tenancies) shall apply to leases or tenancies of land referred to in clauses (i) to (xii) of the said sub-section. As per clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, nothing in Chapter II shall apply to tenancies in respect of sites, tanks and premises of any temple, mosque or church (including sites belonging to a temple, mosque or church 12 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 on which religious ceremonies are conducted) and sites of office buildings and other buildings attached to such temple, mosque or church, created by the owner, trustee or manager of such temple, mosque or church. In view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 74, after the commencement of the Act, no tenancy shall be created in respect of any land. As per subsection (2) of Section 74, any tenancy created in contravention - of the provisions of sub section (1) shall be invalid. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 57, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application under Section 54, the Land Tribunal shall give notice to the landowner, the intermediaries and all other persons interested in the holding, to prefer claims or objections with regard to the application. As per sub-section (2) of Section 57, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received and hearing any - person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under sub section (1) and after making due enquiries, pass orders - (i) on the application, if any, pending before it from the landowner or intermediary for resumption in accordance with the provisions of Section 22; and (ii) on the application for purchase under Section 54. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72, on a date to be notified by the Government in this 13 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72B, the cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and interest. As per clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, no cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of any holding or part of a holding under this section if he, or if he is a member of a family, such family, owns an extent of land not less than the ceiling area. As per clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, where the cultivating tenant or, if he is a member of a family, such family, does not own any land or owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area, he shall be 14 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of only such extent of land as will, together with the land, if any, owned by him or his family, as the case may be, be equal to the ceiling area. In view of the provisions under subsection (1) of Section 72BB, any landowner or intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government may apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of the compensation due to him under Section 72A. As per Section 72C, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 72B or Section 72BB, the Land Tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after the vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in the Government under Section 72, assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound to accept such assignment. In view of the provisions under Section 72F, the Land Tribunal has to issue notices and determine the compensation and purchase price. As per sub-section (1) of Section 72F, as soon as may be after the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a 15 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 holding or part of a holding have vested in the Government under Section 72, or, where an application under Section 72B or Section 72BB has been received by the Land Tribunal, as soon as may be after the receipt of such application, the Land Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form in such manner as may be prescribed, calling upon the landowner, the intermediaries, if any and cultivating tenant; and all other persons interested in the land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government, to prefer claims and objections, if any, within such time as may be specified in the notice and to appear before it on the date specified in the notice with all relevant records to prove their respective claims or in support of their objections. As per the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 72F, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received in - - pursuance of the notice issued under sub section (1) or sub section (2) and the advice received from the village committee or village committees before the date specified therefor and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and after making due enquiries, pass an order specifying the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (5). As per sub-section (1) of 16 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 Section 72K, as soon as may be after the determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or the passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section 72MM the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the landowner or the intermediaries if any. 13. In **Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14]** the Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, found that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as the right of cultivating tenant to fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, the right of the cultivating tenant to get assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of his holdings, the determination by the Land Tribunal the compensation and purchase price and the issuance of purchase certificate to the cultivating tenant. The provisions under the said Act deal with the application for the purchase of the landlord's right by the cultivating tenant and the procedure for consideration of the application by the Land Tribunal, with notice to the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, the 17 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 cultivating tenant and all persons interested in the land, calling upon them to prefer claims and objections, if any, and after making due enquiries. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant. In view of the provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, where the Land Tribunal is of the opinion that an application for purchase certificate has to be allowed, it shall, before it passes an order under Section 57, prepare preliminary findings on the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 55. The Land Tribunal shall issue a notice of its findings to the landowner, every intermediary, etc., calling upon them to prefer in writings claims for the purchase price or part thereof. On receipt of the objections or claims, if any, the Land Tribunal shall consider the same and decide the claims after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce such evidence as may be necessary and then proceed to pass an order under Section 57 of the Act. In such an order passed by the Land Tribunal on an application filed under Section 54 of the Act by the cultivating tenant for purchase of landlord's right, the Land Tribunal has to record its finding that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his 18 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 holding. The tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions. The tenancy is not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. It is well settled that, when the statute requires to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is based on a legal maxim _'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'_ meaning thereby that, if the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, and following other course is not permissible. The said proposition of law about limitation of the exercise of statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M.R. in the case of **Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch.D. 426]** , wherein it was laid down that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The Privy Council applied the said principle in the case of **Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253]** . In **Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All ER** 19 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 **1148)** Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In **Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120)** it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decisiontaker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. By the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, this Court restrained all Land Tribunals in the State from proceedings with any Original Application filed before the appointed date or S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate in respect of Devaswom lands of Temples under the control/ management of Malabar Devaswom Board, Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Cochin Devaswom Board, without the respective Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, in the party array. In the said order, it was made clear that a copy of the Original Application or the report and other materials based on which S.M.Proceedings are initiated shall be enclosed along with the notice issued to the concerned Devaswom Board, through the concerned Village Officer. The Land Tribunals were directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the concerned Devaswom Board to raise its contentions, both legal and factual. It was made clear that the decision taken by the Land Tribunals 20 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 shall be one reflecting the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. 14. In **Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14]** , in continuation of the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, it was ordered that, in the orders passed by the Land Tribunals in the State in Original Applications/S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate, the Land Tribunal has to record its findings that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his holding; that the tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions; and that the tenancy is not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. In respect of temples which are controlled institutions under Malabar Devaswom Board, the Land Tribunals shall take note of the provisions under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as per which any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is 21 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. 15. In **Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple Advisory Committee v. A.K. Joseph [(2009) 14 SCC 628]** it was contended before the Apex Court that the Travancore Devaswom Board is a statutory body which came into being only by the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and before that, the Government and Devaswom were one and the same and there was no separate existence, and therefore, whatever order was passed by the Government prior to 1950 regarding the land in question, it was also binding upon the Board. It was also contended that Section 27 of the Act does not nullify any assignment by the Government before the Travancore Devaswom Board came into existence. As per Section 27, which deals with Devaswom properties, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as ‘Devaswom Vaga’ or ‘Devaswom Poramboke’ and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30[th] Meenam 1097 corresponding to 12.04.1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government 22 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 lands. After perusing the provisions under Section 27, which deals with Devaswom properties, the Apex Court noticed that after coming into force of the Act of 1950 the administration of temples and all their properties and funds, except Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple got vested in the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is clearly mentioned in Section 27 that the immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom property, which is in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswom effective from 12.04.1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The Apex Court held that the interpretation given by the High Court, so far as Section 27 of the Act is concerned, was incorrect as the High Court totally overlooked the fact that Section 27 of the Act stipulates that immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as ‘Devaswom Vaga’ or ‘Devaswom Poramboke’ after 12.04.1922 would be dealt with as Devaswom properties, whether or not the same Devaswom properties was the issue which was sought to be resolved and adjudicated by the High Court by looking into various documents which were placed on record. 16. The petitioner and her husband claim title over 14 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.31/24 of Kavumbhagom Village as per sale deed No.2187/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvalla, 23 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 a copy of which is not placed on record. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of the tax receipt dated 18.12.2023 issued from the Village Office, Kavumbhagom in respect of 14 Ares of land covered by Thandaper No.4658. By Ext.P2 order dated 15.11.2014 of the 5[th] respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), the petitioner and her husband were directed to vacate 26 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.31/24 of Kavumbhagom Village, since it is land of Plappallikulangara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, under Plappallikulangara Devaswom, which is a scheduled Devaswom under Schedule I of the TravancoreCochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. As per the settlement register of Kavumbhagom Pakuthy, Thiruvalla Taluk, 71 cents of land comprised in old Sy.No.29/1B is shown as ‘Pandarapattam Sarkar Thanathu’. 17. Ext.P2 order of the 5[th] respondent Special Tahsildar was set aside by the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and the matter was remanded to the 5[th] respondent, by Ext.P3 order dated 05.03.2015. In Ext.P2, the 2[nd] respondent noticed that the property was in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and her husband before and after the resurvey. The 5[th] respondent reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P4 order dated 25.10.2023, which is now under challenge in Ext.P5 appeal 24 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 filed before the 2[nd] respondent under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, accompanied by Ext.P6 stay petition. 18. DBP No.68 of 2023 registered based on a report No.28 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.77 of 2022 made by M.P.Krishnankutty Nair, Amrutha Kripa, Kavumbhagom P.O., Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta, Pin-689 102, regarding the eviction of encroachers from the Devaswom land of Plappallikulangara Sree Mahavishnu Temple, reconstruction of the temple gate and compound wall, etc., and also the renovation of the temple pond is pending consideration before this Court. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by directing the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 stay petition filed by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, an authorised officer of the 4[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and also the petitioner-complainant in DBP No.68 of 2023, namely, M.P.Krishnankutty Nair, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent shall finally dispose of Ext.P5 appeal, with notice to both sides 25 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 and also the petitioner-complainant in DBP No.68 of 2023, within a further period of four months, after averting to the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides and taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** AV/21/3 26 W.P.(C)No.9610 of 2024 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9610/2024`** |**`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`**|| |---|---| |**`Exhibit P-1`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT NO:`**| ||**`KL03050406344/2023 DATED 18-12-2023 ISSUED`**| ||**`FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE KAVUMBHAGOM`**| |**`Exhibit P-2`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO: A1-199/2012(11)`**| ||**`DATED 13-06-2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`Typed copy of`**<br>**`Exhibit P-2`**|**`TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P-2`**| |**`Exhibit P-3`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO: B3-5125/14 DATED`**| ||**`05-03-2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit P-4`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER NO: A4-199/2012 DATED`**| ||**`25-10-2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT`**| |**`Typed copy of`**<br>**`Exhibit P-4`**|**`TYPED COPY OF EXHIBIT P-4`**| |**`Exhibit P-5`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED`**| ||**`18-01-2024 AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER`**| |**`Exhibit P-6`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 18-`**| ||**`01-2024`**<br>**`AND`**<br>**`SUBMITTED`**<br>**`BEFORE`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`2ND`**| ||**`RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER`**| |**`Exhibit P-7`**|**`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO: 2187/2006`**| ||**`DATED 31-07-2006 OF THIRUVALLA SUB REGISTRY`**|