RANGORATH GOKUL PRASAD 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/19TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 27230OF 2015 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` RANGORATH GOKUL PRASAD, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.LATE GOPINATHAN, 13/393-D, A BLOCK, CHEMMARIKKAT APARTMENTS, KALLIPADAM P.O., SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DIST.-679122. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA ``` |**`RESPONDENT/S:`**|**`RESPONDENT/S:`**| |---|---| |**`1`**|**`THE STATE OF KERALA`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,`**| ||**`REVENUE (DEVASWOM), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,`**| ||**`THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.`**| |**`2`**|**`THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD`**| ||**`REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HOUSE FED`**| ||**`COMPLEX, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.`**| |**`3`**|**`THE COMMISSIONER`**| ||**`MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSE FED COMPLEX,`**| ||**`ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673006.`**| |**`4`**|**`THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR`**| ||**`COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE.`**| |**`5`**|**`THE DIRECTOR`**| ||**`SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.`**| 2 WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 ``` 6 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 3 WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 ## **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 1[st] respondent State to take appropriate action for constituting a special land conservancy unit at the office of the Malabar Devaswom Board, as requested in Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court; and for a direction commanding respondents 3 and 4 to take urgent action to recover the land now being encroached in a war footing manner and to complete the proceedings within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. On 06.10.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 2 and 3. Notice was issued to respondents 5 and 6. 3. On 12.10.2022 when this matter is taken up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order which reads thus; “The petitioner has filed this writ petition, seeking a writ of 4 ## WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent to take appropriate action for constituting a special land conservancy unit at the office of the Malabar Devaswom Board as requested in Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and also for a consequential relief. 2. '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]** 3. 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. 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. 4. 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 5 ## WP(C) NO. 27230 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. 5. In **Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 -** **the Apex Court noticed that t** he issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue direction for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout the India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/ matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial 6 WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation. 6. 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 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. 7. 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 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 [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 and there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every 7 WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 ## step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader seeks a short adjournment to get instructions as to whether steps have already been taken by the State Government to constitute a Special Land Conservancy Unit at the office of the Malabar Devaswom Board, in order to protect Devaswom lands under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board.” 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1[st] respondent State to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P3 representation made by the petitioner, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to in the order of this Court dated 12.10.2022, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Sd/- ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** Sd/- ## **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** bkn/- 8 WP(C) NO. 27230 OF 2015 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27230/2015`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` P1:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.10-12- 1996 IN CRP 1561/1990. ``` ``` P2:TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT.4-2-1997 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPARTMENT. P3:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.NIL SENT BY R3 TO R1. P4:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.13-6-2013 SENT BY R1 TO R4-6. P5:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILES CONTAINING PROCEEDINGS NO.B1/15715/2013 OF THE OFFICE OF R5. P6:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.13- 8-13 SENT BY R5 TO R1. P7:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28-4-2014 SENT BY R1 TO R4-6. P8:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTE FILE OBTAINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. P9:TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22- 5-14 OF R5. P10:TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUBJECT COMMITTEE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR LAND TAX AND DEVASWOMS. ```