DBP No.33 of 2023 (Travancore Devaswom Board - Report No.11 of 2023 in Complaint No.114 of 2022)

1 DBP No.33 of 2023 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023/16TH AGRAHAYANA, ``` ``` 1945 ``` ``` DBP NO.33OF 2023 ``` ``` TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO.11 OF 2023 IN COMPLAINT NO.114 OF 2022 - CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPOUND WALL OF SREECHALEENARAYANAPURAM TEMPLE, THANNEERMUKKOM ``` ``` PETITIONER: ``` ``` S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SREEKARAM (WARD 7) THANNEERMUKKOM P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN 695 003`** - **`2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL), TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA PIN 695 003`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, AMABALAPPUZHA`** - **`4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKKARA`** - **`5 THE DEVASWOM MANAGER, SREECHALEENARAYANAPURAM DEVASWOM, THANNEERMUKKOM P.O, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 527`** 2 DBP No.33 of 2023 - **`6 ADDL R6) STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001`** - **`7 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003`** - **`8 ADDL R8 - THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695003 *IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 8TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 27/11/2023 IN DBP.NO.33/2023`** ## **`BY ADV SANTHOSH KUMAR G.`** ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ## **`SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER`** ``` SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR- STANDING COUNSEL- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ## **`SRI P. RAMACHANDRAN- AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN`** ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 DBP No.33 of 2023 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP is registered _suo motu_ based on Report No.11 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.114 of 2022 made by a devotee of Sree Chaleenarayanapuram Temple, Thanneermukkom, regarding the construction of the compound wall of that temple and to take necessary protective measures against the menace caused by street dogs. 2. On 29.05.2023, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 5 and the additional 7[th] respondent. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for the additional 6[th] respondent. Registry was directed to issue notice to the complainant along with a copy of this DBP. 3. Notice issue to the complainant is yet to be returned after service. 4. On 21.06.2023, when this DBP came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, submitted that in the survey conducted by the additional 7[th] respondent Special Tahsildar, six encroachments were found in the Devaswom land. Notice in Form 4 DBP No.33 of 2023 C under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act has already been issued against the land encroachers and proceedings are now pending. The learned Standing Counsel sought time to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances and accordingly, the matter was adjourned. 5. On 04.12.2023, the learned Standing Counsel has filed an affidavit dated 25.11.2023 of the additional 7[th] respondent Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit, Travancore Devaswom Board. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that affidavit read thus; “3. It is submitted that with regard to the encroachments in Chali Narayanapuram temple coming under the Ambalapuzha Group, the Devaswom Commissioner had issued letter to the Special Tahsildar vide letter ROC.7456/20/LAND dated 27.05.2021 intimating to initiate steps for removal of the encroachments. Accordingly, the Special Tahsildar had surveyed the property on 21.10.2022 and it was found that there are 8 encroachments detected in the Devaswom property. The details of the encroachments are enumerated below: - A) Remadevi, W/o Gopalakrishnan - Sy.No.418/1-2extent 2.50 ares. - B) Sarassama, W/o Narayanan- Sy.No.425/1-2 extent 26 Sq.M. - C) SNDP Branch Committee, Branch No.684, Sy.No.418/1-2-extent 16 Sq.M. - D) K.G. Prabhakaran, Kochukesava Sadanam - Sy.No.416/7-extent 75 Sq.M. 5 DBP No.33 of 2023 - E) Gopi, S/o Gopalan-Sy.No.416/7-1- extent 43 Sq.M. - F) Service Co-operative Bank No.A.809, Sy.No.416/7extent 28 Sq.M. - G) Congress Bhavan, Sy.No-416/7-extent 53 Sq.M. - H) Thaneermukkom Grama Panchayat library - Sy.No.416/7- extent 21 Sq.M. 4. It may be noted that hearing notices were issued 07.12.2022 and 10.01.2023 respectively to the encroachers in the Devaswom property. During the first hearing Remadevi, Sarasamma, Gopi and Service Co-operative Bank No.A.809 had appeared and submitted their documents. During the second hearing. None of the parties had appeared. Thereafter, site inspection was conducted on 08.02.2023 and during the said time K.G.Prabhakaran had appeared and had produced a copy of the Patta obtained by him. Further notice is issued to the encroachers and the records already produced by certain encroachers have to be verified and further if unauthorized encroachments are detected, the same would be removed and a detailed report regarding the same would be submitted also. As regarding the Patta produced by one of the encroacher is concerned, this respondent has sought for the sketch of the Patta land from the Tahsildar concerned and the same has not yet been received. After receiving the same only further proceedings pursuant to B-Form notice can be issued and the proceedings can be finalised. 5. It is further submitted that after removing the encroachments only the Travancore Devaswom Board can consider the necessity for constructing the compound wall to the Chali Narayanapuram Temple.” 6 DBP No.33 of 2023 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 5 and also the additional 7[th] respondent, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman. 7. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 15A, which includes duty to see that regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; and to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees. In view of the provisions under Section 31 of the Act, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and unincorporated and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and festivals in every temple according to its usage. 8. In **M.V. Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of 7 DBP No.33 of 2023 the Trusts Act, 1882, the Apex Court explained the nature of the fiduciary position of the trustee and his duties and obligations. It is the duty of the trustees of the property to be faithful to the Trust and execute any document with reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. A trustee could not therefore occasion any loss to the Trust and it is his duty to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. Paragraph 4 of that decision reads thus; “4. There is some controversy on the question whether Defendant 1 made an outright purchase of the suit property for and on behalf of the trust for Rs. 21,500 on April 19, 1959, or whether he intended to purchase it for himself and then decided to pass it on to the trust, for defendants have led their evidence to show that the property was allowed to be sold for Rs. 21,500/-, which was less than its market value, as it was meant for use by the trust and that Defendant 1 was not acting honestly when he palmed off the property to his son soon after by the aforesaid sale deed Ext.B13 dated July 14, 1960. The fact, however, remains that Defendant 1 was the trustee of the property, and it was his duty to be faithful to the trust and to execute it with reasonable diligence in the manner an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own affairs. He could not therefore occasion any loss to the trust and it was his duty 8 DBP No.33 of 2023 to sell the property, if at all that was necessary, to best advantage. It has in fact been well recognised as an inflexible rule that a person in a fiduciary position like a trustee is not entitled to make a profit for himself or a member of his family. It can also not be gainsaid that he is not allowed to put himself in any such position in which a conflict may arise between his duty and personal interest, and so the control of the trustee's discretionary power prescribed by Section 49 of the Act and the prohibition contained in Section 51 that the trustee may not use or deal with the trust property for his own profit or for any other purpose unconnected with the trust, and the equally important prohibition in Section 52 that the trustee may not, directly or indirectly, buy the trust property on his own account or as an agent for a third person, cast a heavy responsibility upon him in the matter of discharge of his duties as the trustee. It does not require much argument to proceed to the inevitable further conclusion that the Rule prescribed by the aforesaid sections of the Act cannot be evaded by making a sale in the name of the trustee's partner or son, for that would, in fact and substance, indirectly benefit the trustee. Where therefore a trustee makes the sale of a property belonging to the trust, without any compelling reason, in favour of his son, without obtaining the permission of the court concerned, it is the duty of the court, in which the sale is challenged, to examine whether the trustee has acted reasonably and in good faith or whether he has committed a breach of the trust by benefitting himself from the transaction in an indirect 9 DBP No.33 of 2023 manner. The sale in question has therefore to be viewed with suspicion and the High Court committed an error of law in ignoring this important aspect of the law although it had a direct bearing on the controversy before it.” (underline supplied) 9. 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 10 DBP No.33 of 2023 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 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 11 DBP No.33 of 2023 record. 10. The provisions under the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act make it explicitly clear that the role assigned to the Travancore Devaswom Board in the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms is that of a trustee in the management of the properties vested in the deity, which is bound to administer, supervise and control incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms in accordance with the provisions under the said Act. The Board and its officials are duty-bound to function within the framework of the statute, by scrupulously following the stipulations contained therein and acting strictly in accordance with the settled legal principles relating to the administration of Hindu religious trust. The Board, being a trustee in the management of Devaswom properties, is legally bound to perform its duties with utmost care and caution. 11. ‘Deva’ means God and ‘swom’ means ownership in Sanskrit and the term ‘Devaswom’ denotes the property of God in common parlance. See: **Prayar Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala [2018 (1) KHC 536].** 12. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom** 12 DBP No.33 of 2023 **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, 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. 13. 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 13 DBP No.33 of 2023 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 same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings. ## 14. 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 14 DBP No.33 of 2023 sites belonging to a temple, mosque or church 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 sub-section (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) 15 DBP No.33 of 2023 of Section 72, on a date to be notified by the Government in this 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 subsection (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 16 DBP No.33 of 2023 owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area, he shall be 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 sub-section (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 subsection (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 17 DBP No.33 of 2023 of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a 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 18 DBP No.33 of 2023 enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (5). As per subsection (1) of 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. 15. 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 19 DBP No.33 of 2023 of the application by the Land Tribunal, with notice to the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, the 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 20 DBP No.33 of 2023 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. 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 21 DBP No.33 of 2023 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 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 decision-taker 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 22 DBP No.33 of 2023 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 shall be one reflecting the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. 16. 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 23 DBP No.33 of 2023 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 sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. 17. As per the affidavit dated 25.11.2023 of the additional 7[th] respondent Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit, Travancore Devaswom Board, eight encroachments have already been identified in the Devaswom land, in the survey conducted on 21.10.2022. The details of those encroachments are furnished in paragraph 3 of that affidavit. A hearing was conducted after issuing notices dated 07.12.2022 and 10.01.2023 to the encroachers. In the affidavit, it is stated that the Travancore Devaswom Board can consider the necessity for constructing the compound wall after removing the encroachments. 18. In the above circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by directing the additional 7[th] respondent Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit, Travancore Devaswom Board, to finalise the proceedings initiated against the alleged encroachers, in accordance with law with notice to the alleged encroachers, after taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, 24 DBP No.33 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. After the removal of encroachments, the Travancore Devaswom Board shall construct a compound to protect the Devaswom land of Sree Chaleenarayanapuram Temple, Thanneermukkom. Till such time, the 5[th] respondent Devaswom Manager shall take necessary protective measures against the menace, if any, caused in the Devaswom land of Sree Chaleenarayanapuram Temple, Thanneermukkom, by street dogs. The 1[st] respondent Devaswom Commissioner shall file an action taken report before the learned Ombudsman, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** MIN