Ratheesh v. Assistant Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO.29689 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER:** **RATHEESH** **AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, EZHUVACIRA HOUSE, THIRUVALLOOR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NORTH PARAVOOR-683 513,** - **2 THE DISTICT COLLECTOR CIVL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, PARAVOOR TALUK-683 513.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 511.** - **5 VARGHESE AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKATUKARAYIL, ALUVA WEST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 511.** - **6 VIJAYAN P.P. S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, VENGUPARAMBIL, KAVILEPARAMBIL, THIRUVALLOOR KARA, ALANGAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683 511.** - **7 THANKAMANI W/O.DIVAKARAN, PANDATHU HOUSE, NEERIKODE-686 564.** **8 VARGHESE S/O.JOSEPH, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, 683 511.** 2 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 - **9 TESSY GREENAL** **W/O.GREENAL JOSEPH, POUTHNEVTTIL,PALARIVATTOM DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE-682 317.** - **10 SINDHU SOORAJ W/O.SOORAJ, BHAGAVATHIVEETTIL, THEJUS, CHALAKUDY DESOM, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE-680 307.** - **11 SHAJI** **KAVALAPARAMBIL, THIRUVALLOOR,ALANGAD, ERNAKULAMD DISTRICT – 683 511** - **12 KOCHIKUMARAN KAVALAPARAMBIL, THIRUVALLOOR,ALANGAD, ERNAKULAMD DISTRICT – 683 511** - **13 ADDL.R13:THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. (IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18-10-2022)** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRI, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ; SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL -TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 ## **J U D G M E N T** Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner, who is a devotee of Keezhannikavu Temple in Alangad Village of Paravoor Taluk, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to recover the possession of the entire extent of 1.46 Acres of land in Sy.No.434/4 in Alangad Village of Paravoor Taluk, described as “Keezhanikavu Kshethram Irippu nilam” in Ext.P5, which is Sl.No.434/4 in Ext.P2 settlement register of Alangad and hand over the same to Keezhanikavu Temple. In the writ petition, it is alleged that respondents 5 to 12 are holding the temple property without any valid title and as such, the said property has to be recovered from them. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 representation dated 20.08.2015 before the District Collector, Ernakulam. 2. On 30.09.2015, when this writ petition came up for admission, it was ordered to be posted along with W.P.(C) No.26494 of 2014. That writ petition filed by Keezanikkavu 4 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 Samrakshana Samithi and another, which was disposed of by the judgment dated 15.10.2018. Paragraphs 6 to 8 of that judgment reads thus: “6. In the result, we order this writ petition and permit the petitioner to approach the Special Tahsildar, Travancore Devaswom Board, the 5[th] respondent herein, with an appropriate representation detailing all his claims and indicating clearly the encroachments that he alleges, accompanied by all relevant documents and materials that may be in his possession, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If such a representation is received by the Tahsildar, he shall proceed to consider the same under the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, after issuing notice under Section 12 thereof, to the 4[th] respondent and after hearing the petitioner in terms of law. 7. Needless to say all action to be pursued by the Special Tahsildar will be in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and he shall follow the imperative procedural requirements under the said Act while pursuing action to recover the property, if it is found to be temple land. 8. This exercise shall be completed by the Special Tahsildar as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 5 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 3. The 3[rd] respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.10.2022. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that counter affidavit reads thus: “2. The Writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the 1 to 4 respondents to recover possession of the property from party respondents. It is submitted that an extent of 1.46 Acres of land in Alangad Village of Paravur Taluk in Sy.No.434/4 is mentioned as Keezhanikkavu temple in Lithosketch. The land in Sy.No.434/4 is in the category of purayidom in the BTR (Basic Tax Register) and the pattadar name is Eriyelilparambil Thayunni Krishna of Thiruvalloor Kara. Type of land in Sy.No.434/4 as per settlement register is mentioned as "Keezhanikkavu Temple" Irippustalam' and column of pattadar name is mentioned as Sarkar Sripandarakaryam Cheywar. As per enquiries in a partition deed registered as document No. 817/1958 of Sub Registrar Office, Aluva, except 3 cents of property in which the temple situated is transferred and the property is now in possession of other party respondents. 3. It is submitted that the 3 cents which kept aside for the temple includes in Sy.No.434/4 is not identified. This property is not included in puramboke and included in the thandapper of an individual and it is mutated. Sri. Sreesan Sharma Secretary of Keezhanikkavu Samrakshana Samithi filed petition before the 2[nd] respondent to find out and demarcate the land with the 6 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 help of Archaeological Department. Without the help of survey and Archaeology Department 3 cents of property set part of temple in partition deed registered as document No.817/1958 of Sub Registrar Office, Aluva is not identifiable. It can be demarcated only with the help of Archaeological Department, it can be done with in a time fame. The actual position of 3 cents property in Sy.No.434/4 is not identifiable and entire property Sy.No. 434/4 is in actual position of other respondents.” 1 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the 1[st] respondent and the additional 13[th] respondent, and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on respondents 5 to 12 is dispensed with. 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 the 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 7 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 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 directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner shall file a proper petition before the jurisdictional District Judge, in terms of the directions 8 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in **Mrinalini Padhi** (supra) with supporting materials and the alleged encroachers in the party array. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, without expressing anything on the merits of the case projected by the petitioner, and without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the jurisdictional District Judge, in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in **Mrinalini Padhi** (supra) with supporting document and the alleged encroachers in the party array. ## Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE** PV 9 W.P.(C) No.29689 of 2015 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29689/2015** |**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**|**PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**EXT.P1.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE**<br>**PROCEEDINGS OF KEEZHANIKAVU KSHETHRA**<br>**SAMARAKSHANA SAMITHI DATED 31/7/2015.**| |**EXT.P2.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER**| |**EXT.P3.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE**<br>**PARTITION DEED NO.817/1958 OF SRO,**<br>**ALUVA.**| |**EXT.P4.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE LIST ISSUED**<br>**BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALANGAD.**| |**EXT.P5.**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED**<br>**20/8/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**<br>**TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT**|