R.P. No. 1077 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 93 of 2021; R.P. No. 1270 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No. 17369 of 2020; and D.B.P. No. 124 of 2023

## **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 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **R.P. NO. 1077 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO.93 OF** **2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 & ADDL.R4:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY** - **NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER AGED 52 YEARS** - **TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPALLY DEVASWOM GROUP, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **3 SUB GROUP OFFICER AGED 50 YEARS KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM OFFICE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SANKARAMANGALAM, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **4 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER AGED 53 YEARS** - **TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** **BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).** 2 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:** **1 RAJIKUMAR.S. RAJADHANI, PALLISSERIKAL P.O, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM ROOM NO. 8 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 690521.** **2 SAYEESAN.V., SAYEE BHAVANAM, THOTTINUVADAKKU, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA P.O, ROOM NO.7 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** **BY ADVS. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM A.D.SHAJAN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH RP.1270/2023, THE COURT ON 09.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 ## **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 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **R.P. NO. 1270 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2022 IN WP(C) NO.17369 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN – 695003.** - **2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPPALLY DEVASWOM GROUP, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **3 SUB GROUP OFFICER KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM OFFICE OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SANKARAMANGALAM, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** **BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 7:** - **1 SREEKUMAR M.R. AGED 56 YEARS** **S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, PULIMANA MADOM, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.1 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANGKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** 4 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 - **2 ANIL KUMAR AGED 46 YEARS** - **S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN, KULATHINTE KIZHAKKATHIL, CHITTOR PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.2 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANGKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 691583** - **3 B. CHANDRIKAMMA AGED 67 YEARS** - **W/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, VALALIL VEEDU, KESAVAPURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O, KOLLAM, ROOM NO.3 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANGKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **4 R. KRISHNA KUMAR, AGED 49 YEARS,** - **S/O. S. RAMANKUTTY, RADHAKRISHNANILAYAM, PANMANA, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.4 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANGKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **5 AYAJA KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN PILLAI, PAZHANGIYIL, THOTTINUVADAKKU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.6 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **6 SINDU L., AGED 47 YEARS W/O.SREEKANDAN UNNITHAN, POOYAMTHARA THEKKATHIL, THOTTINUVADAKKU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.12 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** 5 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 **7 UMA DEVI, W/O. RAJAN, YMA NIVAS, THOTTINUVADAKKU, CHAVARA P.O., KOLLAM, ROOM NO.9 OF SANKARAMANGALAM KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM SHOPPING COMPLEX, KAMANKULANGARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN – 691583.** **BY ADV R.RANJANIE** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 18.03.2024, ALONG WITH RP.1077/2023, THE COURT ON 09.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 6 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 ## **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 9[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946** **DBP NO. 124 OF 2023** ## _**IRREGULARITIES AT KAMANKULANGARA TEMPLE**_ ## **PETITIONER:** **N. SANKARANARAYANA PILLAI SECRETARY, KAMANKULANGARA SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE PROTECTION COUNCIL, SANKARAMANGALAM, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN – 691583.** **BY SUO MOTU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** - **3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KARUNAGAPALLY DEVASWOM GROUP, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** - **4 SUB GROUP OFFICER KAMANKULANGARA DEVASWOM, DEVASWOM OFFICE OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, SANKARAMANGALAM, KARUNAGAPALLY, PIN – 691583.** 7 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 - **5 CHIEF VIGILANCE AND SECURITY OFFICER(SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - VIGILANCE) TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** - **6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695003.** **BY ADV G.BIJU G., STANDING COUNSEL FOR TDB** **THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 18.03.2024, THE COURT ON 09.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 8 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.** **-----------------------------------------------------------** **R.P.No.1077 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.93 of 2021; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.17369 of 2020; and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023** **----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2024** ## **O R D E R** ## P.G. Ajithkumar, J. ## R.P.No.1077 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.93 of 2021 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and additional respondent No.4 in the writ petition have filed this review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 1.1 The writ petition was disposed of on 08.11.2022. The operative part of the judgment reads,- “6. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, taking note of the fact that the entire shopping complex has already been acquired in connection with the widening/four lining of National Highway-66 and the building in question has already been demolished.” 1.2 The writ petition was filed by the respondents seeking reliefs of quashing Exts.P7 to P10, and also a writ of 9 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 mandamus. The matter in issue was disputes regarding enhancement of rent and demand for additional security deposit in respect of the respective rooms in Kamankulangara Devaswom Shopping Complex belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 08.11.2022, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who are respondents herein and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the entire shopping complex, to which form a part the shop rooms in the possession of the writ petitioners, was already demolished following acquisition of the building and the land in connection with the widening/four lining of National Highway-66. The petitioners now contend that the building was not demolished at that time and on a misconception of facts understood by the learned Standing Counsel from the telephonic instructions he had received on 11.10.2022 from the Board officials such a submission was made before the Court. The petitioners therefore seek to review the judgment dated 08.11.2022 insofar as the 10 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 observation that the building in question was already demolished. 1.3 The 1[st] respondent filed a counter affidavit. 1.4 The 1[st] respondent would contend that the building was already demolished and therefore the submission on 08.11.2022 was factually correct. He has produced Annexure R1(a) photograph in support of that assertion. A few other contentions are also stated in the counter affidavit, which are concerning his grievance that the writ petition was filed by someone else in his name falsely and about the steps taken by him to ventilate that grievance. 1.5 The 2[nd] respondent did not choose to appear and file any objection. ## R.P.No.1270 of 2023 in W.P.(C) No.17369 of 2020 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. The writ petition was filed by the respondents seeking reliefs of quashing Exts.P4 to P10, a declaration and a writ of mandamus. The matter in issue was disputes regarding enhancement of rent and demand for 11 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 additional security deposit in respect of the respective rooms in Kamankulangara Devaswom Shopping Complex belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 08.11.2022, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, who are respondents herein and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the entire shopping complex, to which form a part the shop rooms in the possession of the writ petitioners, was already demolished following acquisition of the building and the land in connection with the widening/four lining of National Highway-66. 2.1. Upon recording the aforesaid submissions the writ petition was disposed of on 08.11.2022. The operative part of the judgment reads,- “6. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, taking note of the fact that the entire shopping complex has already been acquired in connection with the widening/four lining of National Highway-66 and the building in question has already been demolished.” 12 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 2.2. The petitioners now contend that the building was not demolished at that time and on a misconception of facts understood by the learned Standing Counsel from the telephonic instructions he had received on 11.10.2022 from the Board officials such a submission was made before the Court. The petitioners therefore seek to review the judgment dated 08.11.2022 insofar as the observation that the building in question was already demolished. 2.3. The respondents did not choose to appear and file any objection. D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 3. This DBP was registered _suo motu_ based on two complaints; the first one was undated and the second one dated 06.10.2023, submitted by the complainants. 3.1 The allegations in the complaints are that W.P.(C) No.93 of 2021, which was filed by the tenants in occupation of various shop rooms in the Kamankulangara Shopping Complex was happened to be dismissed on the basis of the misleading submissions made by the counsel for the 13 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 petitioners as well as the Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and thereby the Board sustained huge loss. It is alleged in the complaints that the shopping complex was not demolished at the time when the said writ petition was disposed of and on account of disposal of the writ petitions based on the incorrect submission that the building was already demolished, huge amounts due as rent from the respective tenants could not be realised by the Board. Malpractice on the part of the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board also is alleged. 3.2 The 1[st] respondent has submitted an affidavit in terms of the direction by this Court. Paragraph Nos. 4 to 10 in the affidavit read as follows,- “4. It is submitted that on receipt of the complaint, the matter was referred by the Board to its Vigilance wing for enquiry. The Vigilance after conducting enquiry and submitted report recommending action against the Standing Counsel, Liaison Officer, Estate Department, Assistant Devaswom Commissioner Karunagappally and Junior Superintendent, Karunagappally. It is also recommended to take further legal action to challenge 14 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 the impugned judgment and to recover the rent arrears. 5. It is submitted that on receipt of the report from the Vigilance, the Board issued an order dated 19.07.2023 to issue notice to the Standing Counsel, Liaison Officer, Estate Department, Assistant Devaswom Commissioner Karunagappally and Junior Superintendent, Karunagappally. Accordingly notice was issued to all the officers through their respective superior officers. The Law Officer issued a notice to the Standing Counsel and he submitted a detailed reply. In his reply it is stated that the concerned Assistant Law Officer failed to provide instructions in time and hence he was constrained to contact another Assistant Law Officer through Whatsapp. The said officer gave instruction over telephone on 11.10.2022 to the effect that, in Puthiyakavu Devaswom, out of the 24 shop rooms, 14 will be lost and seven persons had preferred cases. As regards Kamankulangara, it was informed that altogether there are 12 rooms in the shopping complex and the entire building will be demolished, 9 shop owners filed cases. When the above cases were heard, the counsel for the petitioners submitted before Court that the shopping complexes stated above have already been acquired in connection with the widening of National Highway and the buildings in question were demolished. The Standing Counsel stated that the above aspects were neither agreed to or denied by him in view 15 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 of the instructions received on 11.10.2022 from the Assistant Law Officer. In the above context, this Hon'ble Court recorded the submission of the counsels in the judgment as agreed by both sides. 6. It is submitted that the Estate Officer and the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Karunagappally submitted separate replies stating their ignorance in the matter, which happened in the Court. The Estate Officer in his reply affirms that the shopping complex is still intact and nobody from the office of Assistant Devaswom Commissioner or the Subgroup gave instructions to the effect that the building has been demolished. It is further reported that notice has been issued to the defaulters but nobody paid the existing or enhanced rent in response to the notice. 7. It is respectfully submitted that from the reply of the Standing Counsel it is discernible that the judgment happened to be passed against the interest of the Board on the basis of the submission from the side of the petitioners. The Standing Counsel did not oppose or agree to the submission in view of the message received by him that the entire building will be demolished. 8. It is submitted that on coming to know about the mistake happened in the matter, the Board asked the Standing Counsel to take appropriate steps to seek review of the judgment to correct the factual error. Accordingly, Review Petitions, R.P. No. 1077/2023 and 16 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 R.P.No.1270/2023 were filed seeking review of the judgments in W.P.(C) No. 93/2021 & W.P.(C) No.17369/ 2020 respectively. 9. It is submitted that the certified copy of the judgment obtained by the Standing Counsel was forwarded to the Board. On getting instruction from the Board to seek review of the judgment, the Standing Counsel applied afresh for certified copy of the judgments. In the meanwhile the Standing Counsel as well as his family members were not well due to health issues and hence there occurred some delay in filing the Review petitions. 10. It is respectfully submitted that from the reply received from the Standing Counsel and other officials, it could be seen that nobody wilfully made any attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Court or to give any undue help to the writ petitioners/defaulters as alleged in the complaints. The officers in the Law office are given strict instructions to be more vigilant in giving timely and correct instructions to the Standing Counsels in all matters.” R.P.Nos.1077 and 1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 4. Heard Sri.G.Santhoshkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the TDB for the review petitioners in R.P.Nos.1077 and 1270 of 2023, the learned Counsel for the 1[st] respondent in R.P.No.1077 of 2023 and Sri.G.Biju, the learned Standing Counsel for the TDB for the respondent in D.B.P.No.124 of 2023. 17 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 5. In pursuance of the direction by this Court, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board has made available for the perusal of this Court the report of the Vigilance Wing of the Travancore Devaswom Board on the matter in dispute and also the remarks of the Law Officer. The relevant files were also produced, which are kept under safe custody of this Court. In terms of the direction of this Court, the learned Standing Counsel of the Board also furnished the details of the then Assistant Commissioner, Karunagappally and the Assistant Law Officer, who gave telephonic instructions to the Standing Counsel on 11.10.2022. 6. The 1[st] respondent in R.P.No.1077 of 2023 maintained that the Kamankulangara Shopping Complex was demolished before 08.11.2022 on which date such a fact was reported before this Court. Annexure R1(a) photograph is produced along with his counter affidavit in support of that contention. But, from Annexure R1(a) it is not able to ascertain status of the property as on which date it reflects. The contention of the review petitioners that on 08.11.2022 18 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 the shopping complex was not demolished, but only subsequently it was demolished is substantiated by the reports of enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Wing in the Board. The materials contained in the files, which were made available for the perusal of this Court, substantiated that fact. 7. In the affidavit filed in the DBP by the Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board, there is an averment that when the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the building in question was already demolished, the learned Standing Counsel did not oppose or agree to that submission. That is incorrect. When it is the assertion in the review petition that the learned Standing Counsel did not oppose the submission of the writ petitioners, how can the Board now maintain that the learned Standing Counsel did not agree with the submission. Therefore, it is obvious that the respective counsel for the writ petitioners in both the writ petitions and the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board made similar submissions on 08.11.2022 that Kamankulangara Shopping Complex was 19 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 already demolished following the acquisition, but, it is an incorrect submission. The observation made by this Court based on the said submission in the respective judgments in the writ petitions that ‘the building in question has already been demolished’ is therefore an incorrect statement of fact and the same is liable to be deleted. 8. The writ petitions were finally disposed of only on account of the submissions both sides concededly, had made that the building in question was demolished. The question involved in the writ petitions was as to the enhancement of rent and demand for enhanced amounts of security deposit. By making such a submission and securing consequent disposal of the writ petitions, the respondents/writ petitioners forfeited their right to get the disputes involved in the writ petitions adjudicated. In view of that matter, no further consideration of the writ petitions is required. It is made clear that the Travancore Devaswom Board has the right to take appropriate actions in the matter of realisation of rent at the prevailing market rates as is fixed by the Board for the period 20 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 during which the writ petitioners/respondents were in possession of the respective tenanted premises. 9. The allegations against the officials in the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the Travancore Devaswom Board in the writ petitions are very serious. The complaints were enquired into by the Board through its Vigilance Wing. If any lapse occurred on the part of the officials, it is certainly the duty and obligation of the Board to take appropriate action in the matter. It is also trite that the Board cannot avoid action if any loss is occasioned to it on account of such wrong committed by its officials. The matter concerning the complaint, which are the subject matter of DBP No.124 of 2022 are under consideration of the Board. Therefore, we refrain from proceeding further in that matter. 10. '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].** 21 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 11. 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. 12. In **A.A. Gopalakrishnan** , on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 22 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 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 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 23 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisons 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 improper for the 24 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 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. 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 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 25 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 in exercising the jurisdiction. Therefore, when a complaint has been raised by the office bearers of the Temple Advisory Committee, which was formed by the devotees of the Temple, about the loss occasioned to the Temple and the Travancore Devaswom Board, the Board has every obligation to take strict action in the matter and this Court has jurisdiction to direct to take such an action. 14. In the above circumstances, there shall be a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to consider the report of the Vigilance Wing and take appropriate action in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainants. A final decision in the matter shall be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. An action taken report shall be submitted to this Court within one month thereafter. 15. Accordingly, the Review Petitions are allowed by deleting from the judgments in the respective writ petitions the observation that “the building in question has already been demolished”. 26 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 16. DBP No.124 of 2023 is disposed of as above. Registrar (Judicial) shall return the files in his custody to the learned Standing Counsel on proper acknowledgement. **Sd/-** **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** **Sd/-** **P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE** dkr 27 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 1077/2023** ## **RESPONDENT ANNEXURES** - **ANNEXURE R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE DEMOLISHED PORTION OF THE SHOPPING COMPLEX SHOWING THE BARREN LAND.** - **ANNEXURE R1(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID REPRESENTATION DTD. 10/8/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE REGISTRAR (VIGILANCE) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** - **ANNEXURE R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE VAKKALATH FILED IN W P(C) 93/2021DTD. 4/1/2021** - **ANNEXURE R1(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DTD. 14/2/2005 EXECUTED BETWEEN T V MADHAVANKUTTY AND 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN** - **ANNEXURE R1(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY HARI PRASAD BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP(C) NO. 93/2021 FOR IMPLEADING HIM AS AN ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 1/11/2021 FILED BY V. SREEKALA FILED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WP(C) NO. 93/2021** - **ANNEXURE R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE AFORESAID STATEMENT DTD. 19/2/2021 FILED BY 3RD REVIEW PETITIONER** - **ANNEXURE R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 26/12/2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM TO THE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, KOLLAM CITY.** 28 R.P.No.1077 of 2023; R.P.No.1270 of 2023 and D.B.P.No.124 of 2023 **ANNEXURE R1(I)** **A TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION REPORT DTD. 11/5/2023 OF THE STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE LABORATORY POLICE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM.** **ANNEXURE R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1061/2021 DTD. 23/9/2021 REGISTERED BY CHAVARA POLICE STATION**