Rangorath Gokul Prasad v. Malabar Devaswom Board & Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** # **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945** **W.P.(C) NO. 20577 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **RANGORATH GOKUL PRASAD AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPINATHAN, 13/1393 -D, A BLOCK, CHEMMARIKKAT APARTMENTS, KALLIPDAM PO, SHORNUR - 679 122.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, ERAHHIPALAM PO, KOZHIKOD - 673 006.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** - **3 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE SANKARANARAYANA SWAMY TEMPLE PANAMANNA DEVASWOM, AMBALAVATTOM PO, PANAMANNA, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 679501.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** - **5 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM - 679 101.** - **6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANAMMA VILLAGE, PANAMMA PO, PIN-679 501.** 2 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 - **7 GOPALAN NAIR,** - **S/O. ACHUTAHAN KUTTY, LAKSHMI, KEERTHI NAGAR, THOTTAKKARA PO, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 102.** - **8 SATHYAPALAN S/O. LATEGOPALANNAIR, NO.20, GURUNILAYAM, PATHMAVATHI AYYAR ROAD, GOPALAPURAM, CHENNAI – 600086.** - **9 A. VALSALA, D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR OLD NO.4, NEW NO,11, WAHAB STREET, CHGOOLAMEDU, CHENNAI - 600 098.** - **10 A. SANTHA** - **D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR, NO.41, SECOND FLOOR, JAGANATHPURAM 2ND STREET, CHETPET 31, CHENNAI – 600031.** - **11 SARALA RAMANUNNI** - **D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR, FLAT C, PLOT 5D AND 5E, SEVAGANAPATHY NAGAR, KOPUR KOVUR VILLAGE, CHENNAI - 600 122.** - **12 A. SAKUNTHALA, D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR T-1, MAHALAKSHMI APARTMENTS, SANTHY COLONY HUBLI – 32.** - **13 A. VIMALA VIJAYA RAGAHAVAN, D/O. LATE GOPALAN NAIR ADITHYA VRINDAVAN APARTMENTS 259/5, INDIRA GANDHI SALAI, 1ST FLOOR,** - **R.K.NAGAR, ALWAR THEVAR NAGAR,CHENNAI – 600087.** - **14 A. KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O LATE GOPALAN NAIR GYTATHRI, SRK NAGAR, PALAPPURAM OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 679 103.** - **15 SATHYAPALAN** - **S/O LATE JANAKI AMMA, NO.502, MALAPRABHA, NGV COMPLEX, VIVEK NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 047.** 3 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 - **16 SANGEETHA MENON** - **C/O ACHUT MENON, OPTIONS EXECUTIVE SEARCH PVT, LTD 84, ANAND NAGARM, KHAIRATABADM, HYDERABAD – 500004.** - **17 KUMARA KRISHNAN, S/O LATE JANAKI AMMA OLD MULLASSSERI HOUSE, OFF, CHEMBOLY ROAD, KANIYAMPURAM PO, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **18 RADHAKRISHNAN** - **S/O LATE JANAKI AMMA, JANAKI KRIPA, MUYLLASSEERI HOUSE, OFF,. CHEMBOLY ROAD, KANNIYAMPURAM [PO), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **19 JAYAKRISHNAN S/O LATE JANAKI AMMA, "USHUS" MULLASSERI HOUSE, OFF, CHEMBOLY ROAD, KANNIYAMPURAM (PO), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **20 RAMAKRISHANAN @ APPU, S/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA PERSONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN COPPER CORPORATION INDIA LTD SAIYID AMEER ALI AVENUE, CALCUTTA – 700019.** - **21 M INDIRA NAIR,** - **D/O LATE JANAKI AMMA, W.O COLONEL KR NAIR, NO.502, N.G.V. COMPLEX,NETHRVATHI, BLOCK 2, VIVEK NAGAR, KRAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 047.** - **22 SANTHA KUMARI, D/O. SANTHAKUMARI RESHMI MULLASSERI HOUSE** - **OFF.CHEMBOLY ROAD, KANNIYAMPURAM (PO), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **23 MINI SANKAR** - **D/O. SANTHAKUMARI RESHMI MULLASSERI HOUSE OFF.CHEMBOLY ROAD, KANNIYAMPURAM (PO), OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** 4 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 - **24 SUSHEELA, D/O. LATE JANAKI AMMA TC 5/ 1732, GOKUL NAGAR, AMBALAMUKKU, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.** - **25 RAJESHWARI** - **D/O. LATE SUSHEELA, 42, VENUS APARTMENTS, 4TH FLOOR, 564, GOLF VIEW AREA,A- SORES ROAD, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI - 400 071.** - **26 RAJAGOPALAN S/O SUSHEELA, 1-B, SJYLAND DUE DROPS, PERRORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.** - **27 RAJALAKSHMI, D/O SUSHEELA TC 5/1732, GOKUL NAGAR, AMBALAMUKKU, KAWADIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.** - **28 RAJENDRAN S/O. SUSHEELA, G-12,SHERA SQUARE 156, CHULLAMDEDU, HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI – 600094.** - **29 LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. LATE RAJAN THEKANCHERI HOUSE KALARMANGALM PO, KADAMPUZHA VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 553.** - **30 JALAJA D/O.LATE RAJAN, C/O ADVOCATE JAYASHANKAR, SREE NANDANAM, PO PONNAKKAL, KG PADI, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121.** - **31 DR. T. JAYAKRISHNAN (UROLOGIST) S/O. LATE RAJAN, VALLUVANAD HOSPITAL, KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** - **32 MANI @ SUSHEELA NAIR, D/O. AMMINI AMMA, NEW HEAVEN CH SECTOR, NO.14, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI.** - **33 KUTTAN @ NARAYANANKUTTY, S/O AMMINI AMMA, 004, SARVODAYA KUNJU COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD, BALAJI NAGAR, CHOLENGOAN, TAKKULI EAST, THANE,** 5 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 ## **MAHARASHTRA – 400601.** - **34 THANKU VILASINI D/O AMMINI AMMA, KALYATH HOUSE, CHALAVARA PO, VIA OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT -679 505.** - **35 BALAKRISHNAN** - **S/O AMMINI AMMA, 203, SAMEEER CH SOCIETY LTD, BALAJI NAGAR, CHOLEGOAN, TAKKULI EAST, THANE, MAHARASHTRA – 400601.** - **36 AMBIKADEVI, D/O. PARUKUTTY AMMA CHANDRANIVAS, NEAR POST OFFICE, KANIYAMPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **37 BABY SETHUMADHAVAN, D/O MEENAKSHI AMMA SREEVALSAM, THRIKANGODE, MANISEERI PO, OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-679 521.** - **38 RUGNINI, D/O . MEENAKSHI AMMA, CHITRALAYAM, PANAMANNA SOUTH PO, OTTAPALA, PALAKKAD - 679 105.** - **39 JAYACHITHRA, D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA CHAITHRAM", THIURKOTTIL HOUSE, CHUNGANAD, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 511.** - **40 LEELA, W/O LATE BALAKRISHNAN, KIZHAKEDATHU MANNA, CHALKUDY PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307.** - **41 MADHAUBALAKRISHANAN** - **S/O LATE BALAKRISHANAN," MADHAVAN" AJANTHA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION 7, KANNANKULANGARAK THRIPPUNITHURA PO, ERNAKULAM - 679 511.** - **42 SREEKUMAR S/O LATE BALAKRISHANAN, KIZHAKEDATHU MANNA, CHALAKUDY PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307.** - **43 INDIRA** - **D/O LAKSHMI AMMA, JAWAHARNAGAR, NEW MULLASSERI** 6 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 **HOUSE, MANNIYAMPURAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 104.** - **44 BALACHANDRAN** - **S/O LAKSHMI AMMA, NOP. 19/13-1, SREEKANTHESHWAR NAGAR, NENDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 096.** - **45* P.S.RAMESH** **AGED 45 YEARS** **S/O LATE SADASIVA GURUKAL, PILLAYANDAN HOUSE, VAISHNAVAM GARDENS, KORANGODE KALAM, KODUVAYUR PO., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** ***IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.11.2015 IN I.A.NO.15965 OF 2015.** **BY ADVS.** **R1 TO R3 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD** **R4 TO R6 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **R14 BY SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** **R16 BY SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)** **R18 BY SRI.C.A.CHACKO** **SRI.K.T.SAJU R38 BY SRI.K.T.SAJU R45 BY SMT.A.A.GEETHA** ## **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL** **HEARING ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 7 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 ## **JUDGMENT** ## P.G.Ajithkumar, J. The petitioner claiming to be a devotee of Sree Sankaranarayanan Swami Temple, Panamanna, Ottappalam Taluk has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs Orders or Directions commanding the respondents 1 and 2 initiate appropriate further action by preferring appeal before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Thrissur and to get Exhibit P-1 set aside as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs Orders or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take emergent steps to challenge the preliminary decree in O.S.No.66/2001 on the file of Sub Court, Ottappallam and also to get themselves impleaded in the final decree proceedings and to defend the precious temple property. iii. Issue Writ to declare that the party respondents herein have absolutely no authority to hold the property belonging to the temple on the light of Exhibit P-1 purchase certificate in the light of the principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court in **Travancore Devaswom Board Vs. Mohanan Nair [(2013) (3) KLT 132]** 8 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 which stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. iv. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, orders or Directions commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to approach the competent court by preferring suit for declaration and injunction against the party respondents or any person in possession of the above property in view of the principles laid down by this Hon'ble Court in **Shamsudheen Vs. Travancore Devaswom Board [(2001 (1) KLT 292)].** ” 2. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondent Nos.4 to 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Notice was directed to be served on the remaining respondents. The petitioner took steps several times, but service could not be completed. Notice is yet to be served on respondent Nos.11, 12,15, 20, 21, 24, 33, 35, 19, 25, 31, 32 and 44. 3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for party respondents. 4. Sree Sankaranarayanan Swami Temple is a 9 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board. The 3[rd] respondent Executive Officer is in the administration of the temple under the supervision of a Board of Trustees. 2.31 acres of land comprised in survey Nos.118/11, 119/3, 119/2 and 119/5 of Panamanna Village belonging to the temple is now in the possession of respondent Nos.8 to 45. Their predecessor in interest trespassed upon the said property and managed to obtain a purchase certificate in respect of that property from Land Tribunal No.4, Ottappalam. Ext.P1 is a copy of the said purchase certificate. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not take any action to challenge the said purchase certificate and to resume possession of the said property to the deity. 5. Those who succeeded the persons obtained Ext.P1 Purchase Certificate filed O.S.No.66 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam and got the property partitioned among them. They did not derive valid title to the property. On account of the inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also the Board of Trustees of the temple, deity lost 10 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 possession of the said property. Although the petitioner filed a petition intervening O.S.No.66 of 2001, he was unable to get back possession of property to the temple. He sent notice to the party respondents to return the property to the temple, but they did not oblige. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 fences eating the crops should be dealt with sternly. 11 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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. 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 12 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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 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 13 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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 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** (supra) 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 14 ## W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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 parents 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. 9. In **Mohanan Nair** 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 15 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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 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 16 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 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 contention 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-feasance of a trustee. 17 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 ## 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** (supra). The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in **Mohanan Nair** (supra). In the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without 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. Even according to the petitioner, respondent Nos 8 to 45 possess the property in dispute on the basis of Ext.P1 18 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 Purchase certificate issued from the Land Tribunal No.4, Ottappalam. Ext.P4 is the order of the Land Tribunal under Section 72(f)(5) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1971. It is seen that Panamanna Devaswom Manager was a party to the S.M Proceedings No.750 of 1977 in which Ext.P1 Purchase Certificate was issued. Therefore, this is a case where the purchase certificate was issued after hearing the Panamanna Devaswom which is the trustee in charge of the affairs of Sree Sankaranarayanan Swamy Temple, Panamanna. Prima facie, therefore, it cannot be said that Ext.P1 is shrouded by fraud in which event, this Court would be obliged to consider whether the purchase certificate is liable to be invalidated. When Ext.P1 was issued by the Land Tribunal after hearing the trustee of the temple, validity of the said purchase certificate can be assailed only by the procedure established by the law. If the property in question is one exempted under Section 3(i)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act also, it would have been possible to examine validity of Ext.P1 in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 19 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 petitioners or respondents 1 to 3 do not have such a case. That apart, the petitioner could not complete service of notice on all the party respondents despite pendency of these proceedings for about 8 years in this Court. Without giving notice to all the party respondents, it is not possible to venture an enquiry to decide the validity of Ext.P1. 12. In such circumstances, we are of the view that respondent No.3 who is administering Sree Sankaranarayan Swamy Temple under the Board of Trustees can be directed to take appropriate action in the matter. Indisputably the said temple is a religious endowment under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board. As per the provisions of Section 20 of the Malabar Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Malabar Devaswom Board has obligation to see that administration of every religious endowment under its control is duly done. Therefore the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials have to take appropriate supervisory steps in order to ensure that the 3[rd] respondent takes all legally possible steps to reclaim 2.31 acres of land described 20 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 herein to the possession of the temple. No further relief as prayed in the writ petition is liable to be granted. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: - i) The 3[rd] respondent, who is administering Sree Sankaranarayanan Swamy Temple under the Board of Trustees is directed to take appropriate action to retrieve possession of 2.31 acres of land comprised in survey Nos.118/11, 119/3, 119/2 and 119/5 of Panamanna Village belonging to the temple which is now in the possession of respondent Nos.8 to 45; and - ii) The 1st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board is directed to take appropriate supervisory steps in order to ensure that the 3[rd] respondent takes all legally possible steps to reclaim the said 2.31 acres of land to the possession of the Sree Sankaranarayanan Swamy Temple, Panamanna. ## **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 21 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20577/2015** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1:** **TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSORS FO THE PARTY RESPONDENTS OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTEE BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER REGARDING THE PROPERTY** - **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL AND THE STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 72( F(5) OF THE K.R.R. ACT** - **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OFTHE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 72 F(1) OF THE K.L.R. ACT** - **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON/BLE SURPREME COURT DATED 24.7.2013 IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NOS. 21376-21378/2013** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRP NO.1561/90 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. HR 397/97 DATED 04.02.1997 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PLANT IN OS NO.66/2001 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM** **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.66/2001 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM** 22 W.P.(C) No.20577 of 2015 **EXHIBIT P11:** **TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.66/2001 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM** **EXHIBIT P12:** **TRUE COPY OF TRHE COMMON ORDER DATED 31.3.2014 IN IA NO.1842/2013, 1844/2013 AND 2546/2013 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM** **EXHIBIT P13:** **TRUE COPY OF TRHE LWAYER NOTICE DATED 23.3.2015 SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER WITHOR APPENDIX** **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.4.2015 EXHIBIT P14(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.5.2015 EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.4.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD WITHOUT APPENDIX** **EXHIBIT P16:** **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.2.2015 IN WPC NO.2900/2015**