Travancore Devaswom Board v. Devotees of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple (DBP No.56 of 2023)

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. GIRISH ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1945 ``` ## **`DBP NO.56 OF 2023`** ``` TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - REPORT NO. 20 OF 2023 IN COMPLAINT NO. 21 OF 2017 - THELLIYOOR KAVU DEVI TEMPLE, THELLIYOOR - LEGAL MEASURES TO SAFEGUARD DEVASWOM INTERESTS AND RECOVER POSSESSION OF LAND FROM THIRD PARTIES ``` ## **`COMPLAINANT:`** ## **`DEVOTEES OF THELLIYOOR KAVU DEVI TEMPLE THELLIYOOR DEVASWOM, THELLIYOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 544`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`2 THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`3 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVALLA`** - **`4 THE LAND SPECIAL OFFICER THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`5 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY`** - **`6 THE DEPUTY DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER (P&SGRC) THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** 2 DBP No.56 of 2023 ``` *ADDL R7THE CHIEF ENGINEER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 ``` ``` *ADDL R8THE STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERN- MENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 ``` ``` *ADDL R9DEPUTY DIRECTOR ``` ``` KERALA STATE AUDIT DEPARTMENT, TRAVANCORE DEVAS- WOM BOARD AUDIT, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003 ``` ``` *ADDL R10THE SUB GROUP OFFICER THELLIYOOR KAVU DEVI TEMPLE, THIRUVALLA GROUP, EZHUMATTOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689586 *[ADDL.R7 TO R10 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 24/07/2023 IN DBP.NO.56/2023] ``` ``` *ADDL R11 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT) TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003 *(IS SUO MOTU IM- PLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 11[TH] RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 10/10/2023 IN DBP.NO.56/2023) ``` ``` *ADDL.R12 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY, PIN-689 585 ``` ``` SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN, AMICUS CURIAE FOR OMBUDSMAN; SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER; SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR G, STANDING COUNSEL, TRAVAN- CORE DEVASWOM BOARD ``` ``` THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMIS- ``` ``` FOLLOWING: ``` 3 DBP No.56 of 2023 ## **ORDER** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This DBP is registered, based on report No.20 of 2023 of the learned Ombudsman in Complaint No.21 of 2017 made by the devotees of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple, a temple under the management of the 5[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. In the complaint, it is stated that based on the permission obtained from this Court, a ‘Kalyana Mandapam’ was constructed. The Devaswom Board fixed Rs.22,000/- per day as the rent. However, the Board officials, including the Sub Group Officer and the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla, with the help of some commission agents, dissuade persons coming to book ‘Kalyana Mandapam’ by saying that the rent of the hall is high and advised them to construct temporary Panthal for conducting marriage, so that they can earn money in that deal. No electricity connection is taken to ‘Kalyana Mandapam’ and no steps are being taken to electrify that building. If electricity, water, furniture, etc., are ensured, it will attract more people to conduct marriages. Though representations were made before the Travancore Devaswom Board, there was no result. Further, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner gave a one-sided report and hence, the complaint was filed before the learned Ombudsman. 4 DBP No.56 of 2023 2. Before the learned Ombudsman, since the name of the devotees are not mentioned in the complaint, notice was issued only to the respondents. The learned Ombudsman conducted an enquiry in Complaint No.21 of 2017 and submitted Report No.20 of 2023. Paragraphs 2 to 9 of that report read thus; “2. Pursuant to the notice issued and based on subsequent proceedings, two enquiries were conducted one at the instance of the Department and the other by the Vigilance. Copy of the report of enquiry conducted by the Department is marked as Annexure O2. That of the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance was not made available Office. 3. The Devaswom Commissioner filed a reply dated 10th November, 2017 which is marked as Annexure O3 in which it is stated that, based on the enquiry reports the Chief Engineer has been authorised to take immediate steps for ensuring water, electricity, furniture etc. to the Auditorium and to fix the rate of rent considering the rent prevalent in the market for similar halls. It is also stated that the Special Tahsildar has been requested to measure the property owned by the Devaswom and to fix the survey number. With respect to the allegation against the officers, disciplinary actions were initiated. As such, being a service matter, the matter was left to the administration for taking follow up steps as per law, subject to the right of the parties. 4, Further report is submitted on the question regarding trespass on the Devaswom land, which is brought to notice in the course of proceedings as revealed by the subsequent reports made by the Special Tahsildar. The Special 5 DBP No.56 of 2023 Tahsildar, in his report dated 9.1.2018 has reported that boundary stones were laid after measurement and mahazar was prepared. However, with respect to the land where Vrischika Vanibham was conducted, though it belongs to Devaswom as per the judgment and decree in S.A.No.994 of 1973 of the Honourable High Court, revenue records are not seen rectified suitably to change the name of the property as that of the Devaswom. As per the Resurvey records maintained in the Thelliyoor Village, an extent of 28.80 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.85/2 (old Sy. No. 51/1A) thandaper No. 2694 is in the name of one Sri. D. Gopalakrishnan Nair, S/o. Sreerama Sadanathu Damodaran Pillai. 5. Based on the old survey as also resurvey, changes have not been effected in the resurvey records and village records. When the temple and its properties were taken over by the Travancore Devaswom Board, a mahazar was prepared which is not available. Hence, it is suggested that based on the judgment of the Honourable High Court, steps are to be taken for collecting the revenue records and the Devaswom Board has to take steps for rectification of the register to change the name of the private parties shown in the Thandaper to that of Travancore Devaswom Board. Though the Sub Group Officer was given instructions in this connection by the Tahsildar, only after the records are corrected, steps could be taken under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act for recovery of the property from trespassers. A copy of the report of the Tahsildar is marked as Annexure O4. 6. The Land Special Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, filed a detailed statement dated 16.4.2018, marked as 6 DBP No.56 of 2023 Annexure O5. From the report of the Land Special Officer, it can be seen that Thelliyoorkavu Devaswom was taken over by the Travancore Devaswom Board by Gazette Publication in accordance with the provisions under Section 87(1) of Act 15 of 1950 (Annexure O6). However, the property situated on the eastern side of the Temple where Vrischika Vanibham is conducted is now in the possession of one Raman Pillai and at the time of takeover there was a 'Sammatha pathram' (agreement) agreeing to give this land to the Devaswom Board. A copy of this Sammatha pathram agreement is produced on record as Annexure O7. Except the extent of the land where Vrischika Vanibham is conducted, the rest of the property referred to in the Sammatha Pathram has been handed over to the Devaswom Board as informed by the members of the Temple Advisory Committee then in force. However, the property where Vrischika Vanibham is conducted is outstanding with third parties. The Devaswom Commissioner, in his letter dated 23.6.2018 has stated that disciplinary action was already initiated against the erring officers. Copy of the said letter is produced as Annexure O9. As may be noticed from Annexure O6, before the land was changed into the name Gopalakrishnan Nair, the land was in the name of Raghavar Kochuraghavar. 7. There is some historical background regarding this case. O.S.No.116 of 1967 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla and A.S.No.24 of 1972 before the Sub Court, Alleppey were appealed to the Honourable High Court as S.A.No.111 of 1974 and as per the judgment of the Honourable High Court, the right and title of the Devaswom property was conceded to and in view of the settlement, 7 DBP No.56 of 2023 O.S.No.116 of 1967 was decreed. Copy of the judgment and decree in S.A.994 of 1973 is produced as Annexure O8. Copy of the judgment of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla, is produced as Annexure O10. The complaint earlier filed as C. 363/2011 before the Ombudsman by the President of the Temple Advisory Committee was disposed of by proceedings dated 02.08.2012. Copy of the same is marked as Annexure O11. There, the contention of the Temple Advisory Committee was that the exclusive right to conduct the Vrischika Vanibham in Thelliyoorkavu Bhagavathi Temple is with the Devaswom Board and attempts are made to create an impression that Vrischika Vanibham is conducted in a private property and it was to resist such attempt that the complaint was made. Reference was also made to S.A.Nos. 994 of 1973 and 111 of 1974 where the title was declared by the Honourable High Court in favour of the Devaswom. Sri.Gopakakrishnan Nair, the President of Sreerama Ashramam, claimed that this is a trust property and Vanibham is conducted by Paravannolil family and the property where the Vanibham is conducted belongs to the Trust. It is noticed that the dispute is in respect of 40 cents of land which is now in the possession of the Trust. Though Vrischika Vanibham is conducted in this 40 cents of property as well as in an extended property, admittedly now in the possession of the Devaswom, both of them were contending that these properties were in their possession. As respects 40 cents, possession is outstanding with the Trust. Since the title dispute is with respect to 40 cents and the effect of the compromise decree can be properly decided only by a civil court, that complaint was closed by the Ombudsman. Since 8 DBP No.56 of 2023 the finality and the binding nature of the judgment in the S.A.Nos.11 of 1974 and 994 of 1973 is challenged by the Trust, it was held that it is for the Board and the Temple Advisory Committee to take such action as per law after studying the judgment in S.A.Nos.111 of 1974 and O.S.No.459 of 1976. 8. The Land Special Officer in his letter dated 23.6.2018, copy of which is marked as Annexure O12, has specifically stated that though there is an agreement between the parties, the land has not been changed to the name of Devaswom. Hence they are not in possession of the same. Therefore, legal steps are to be taken in this regard. 9. This is confirmed by the Devaswom Commissioner, in his letter dated 6.1.2021, copy of which is marked as Annexure O13. But so far, no steps are seen to have been taken by either approaching the civil court or for rectification of the mistakes in the Revenue Register. As such, the portion of the property where Vrischika Vanibham is conducted appears to continue in the possession of third party.” 3. On 11.07.2023, when this report came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court, a few photographs of the Kalyana Mandapam of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple and its parking facility. The learned Standing Counsel was also directed to get instructions as to whether proper facilities are provided at the Kalyana Mandapam for conducting marriages. 9 DBP No.56 of 2023 4. On 24.07.2023, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel has made available for the perusal of this Court, a few photographs of the Kalyana Mandapam in Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple, which is constructed as an ‘edathavalam’ for Sabarimala pilgrims. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the building is not having proper electricity connection. By the order dated 24.07.2023, the Chief Engineer, Travancore Devaswom Board, State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Devaswom) Department; the Deputy Director, Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit and the Sub Group Officer, Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple were impleaded as additional respondents 7 to 10. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board has filed an affidavit on behalf of the 5[th] respondent Board. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that affidavit read thus; 3. It is submitted that an amount of Rs.18,950/- is the rent which is presently realized for 'Idathavalam', Marriage and other purposes. Rs.15,000/as Idathavalam rent, Rs.2850/- towards rent to chair and desk and Rs.1100/for marriage. The electricity connection was made available on 30.10.2018 itself as regarding water supply is concerned, presently there is no water connection. For Marriage and other purposes, water is being taken using 10 DBP No.56 of 2023 Motor from the well which is outside the Nalambalam. There are sufficient fan and light arrangements in the auditorium also. However few of the fans are not functioning at present and for the same estimate has already been taken also. 4. It may be noted that as per Annexure-04 report submitted by the Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit of TDB before the Hon'ble Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Board, the property in question was situated in Alappuzha District (presently Pathanamthitta District), Thiruvalla Taluk, Ezhumattoor Village (presently ThelliyoorVillage), Sy.No.49/3 comprising 10 Acre 29 Cents consists of Kshethram irippu land, Sy No.40/10 consisting of 63cents wherein 'Pattambalam' is situated. Kurinjikkattukavu property comprising of 2 Acres 64 Cents, Kshethra kulam and Chira consisting of 1 Acre 37 cents. However according to the Special Tahsildar, the property wherein 'Vrischika Vanibham' is conducted is situated in Sy.No.51/1A (Re.Sy.No.85/2) comprising of 28.80 Ares. However the entry of the property in the Revenue records wherein Vrischika Vanibham is conducted is wrongly shown in the name of D.Gopalakrishnan Nair. As per Annexure-04 report, the Special Tahsildar had instructed the Sub Group Officer concerned to prefer appropriate petition before the Tahsildar (Land Records), Mallappally for effecting necessary changes in the revenue records and to get the same corrected in the name of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 5. It may be noted that the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla on 26.10.2023 had issued a letter to the Tahsildar, Mallappally for effecting necessary 11 DBP No.56 of 2023 changes in the Revenue records with regard to the property wherein Vrischika Vanibham is being conducted. True copy of the letter dated 26.10.2023 issued by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla to the Tahsildar, Mallappally is produced herewithand marked as Annexure-R5(a). In reply to Anenxure-R5(a) letter, the Tahsildar (LR), Mallappally had issued a reply letter to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla on 10.11.2023. As per the same the Tahsildar (LR), Mallappally had sought necessary records to prove the ownership over the property in question. True copy of the letter dated 10.11.2023 issued by the Tahsildar (LR), Mallappally to the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Thiruvalla is produced herewith and marked as AnnexureR5(b). 6. It is submitted that thereafter the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner (in-charge) of Thiruvalla Devaswom had submitted another letter to the Tahsildar (LR) Mallappally on 24.11.2023 along with the necessary records to prove the ownership of the Devaswom over the property in question. True copy of the letter dated 24.11.2023 submitted by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner (incharge), Thiruvalla to the Tahsildar (LR), Mallappally is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R5(c). Therefore, necessary direction is required to correct the entry in the revenue records with regard to the propery wherein 'Vrischika Vanibham' is conducted which is situated in Sy No.51/1A (Re.Sy.No.85/2)” 6. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 6 and also for additional 12 DBP No.56 of 2023 respondents 7, 10 and 11, the learned Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents 8, 9 and 12 and also the learned Amicus Curiae for the learned Ombudsman. 7. '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].** 8. 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 ‘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 13 DBP No.56 of 2023 of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 9. 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 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. 10. In **Nandakumar v. District Collector and others** **[2018 (2) KHC 58]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that 14 DBP No.56 of 2023 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. 11. In **M.V.Ramasubbiar v. Manicka Narasimachara** **[(1979) 2 SCC 65]** , in the context of Sections 49, 51 and 52 of 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 15 DBP No.56 of 2023 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 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 16 DBP No.56 of 2023 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 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) ## 12. In **Rajani P. Kuttan and another v. State of Kerala** **and others [2021 (6) KHC 513]** a Division Bench of this Court noticed that among the 1250 Temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, only 60 major Temples are self-sufficient and 17 DBP No.56 of 2023 the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Travancore Devaswom Board is 5692 and the total number of pensioners is 5749. The major source of revenue of the Travancore Devaswom Board is the income received by way of offering by the devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu and the revenue generated through the auction of temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the Temples. Paragraph 59 of the said decision reads thus: 59. The Financial position of the Devaswom Board:- The competent officer of the Devaswom Board filed an affidavit dated 14.06.2021 stating its financial position. It is submitted that there are 1250 temples under the Administrative Control of the Devaswom Board. The total number of sanctioned posts in various categories in the Devaswom Board is 5692, and the total number of pensioners is 5749. It is further submitted that the major sources of revenue of the Devaswom Board are the income received by way of offerings from devotees, the amount received from vazhipadu, and the revenue generated through the auction of the temple premises for various activities in connection with rituals and festivals in the temples. Besides this, the Devaswom Board gets an approximate sum of 14 crores per annum by way of the rent of the buildings owned by it. The annual contribution from the State Government under Article 290A of the Constitution of India is Rs.80 lakhs. It is further submitted that among the 1250 temples managed by the Devaswom 18 DBP No.56 of 2023 - Board, only 60 major temples are self sufficient, and the rest are being managed utilising the surplus income from Sabarimala Devaswom. Now, due to the spread of the Covid19 pandemic, the temples remain closed, and the major source of income has come down. The Devaswom Board is finding it difficult even to pay the salary of the existing employees. The pleadings regarding the financial position of the Devaswom Board in the affidavit dated 14.06.2021 have not been controverted by the petitioners.” (underline supplied) 13. In **Abu K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board [2022:KER:56747 : 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** - judgment dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.(C) No. 2254 of 2022 - a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a party, was dealing with a case in which Kuthaka right for running Aymanam Sri. Narasimha-swami Auditorium (sadyalayam) constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board was auctioned for a period of two years from 01.08.2019 to 31.07.2021, for Rs. 2,41,000/-. The average monthly income generated from the said building constructed by the Travancore Devaswom Board by spending several lakhs of rupees was only Rs. 10,000/-. Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in **M.V. Ramasubbiar [(1979) 2 SCC 65]** this Court held that, while auctioning the right for running that sadyalayam, the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have to ensure that proper 19 DBP No.56 of 2023 income to the Board is generated from the said building. In case of any default committed by the successful bidder in remitting the balance auction amount, electricity charges or any other statutory dues payable as per the tender conditions, the concerned Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have to take prompt action against such bidder and the said fact has to be promptly reported to the concerned officer in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board. 14. In **Abu K.S. [2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1642]** the writ petitioner, the successful bidder, remitted only 50% of the auction amount on 18.07.2019. Though he had defaulted payment of the balance amount of Rs. 1,20,500/-, he was permitted to continue to occupy the sadyalayam, even beyond the period of auction, i.e., 31.07.2021. The concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer have not taken any action against the successful bidder till the order of this Court dated 01.02.2022, whereby they were directed to take over possession of the sadyalayam forthwith, if found necessary with police assistance. In such circumstances, in the said decision, this Court deprecated in the strongest words the conduct of the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer and also the concerned 20 DBP No.56 of 2023 officers in the Estate Division of the Travancore Devaswom Board in taking no action against the successful bidder, who was a defaulter. In the said decision, this Court found that the concerned officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board have not shown reasonable diligence in the manner of an ordinary prudent man of business to conduct his own affairs. Since such irregularities in the conduct of auction for running auditoriums/ sadyalayams in the temples under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board cannot be permitted in future, this Court directed Registry to initiate _suo motu_ proceedings in that matter. 15. In the instant case, the Kalyana Mandapam of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple is one constructed spending several lakhs, which was inaugurated in August, 2014. The Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials have a statutory duty to ensure that proper income is generated from the Kalyana Mandapam of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Board. 16. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that the Kalyana Mandapam of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple has an electric 21 DBP No.56 of 2023 connection. Steps are being taken to meet the requirement of drinking water, from the nearby well. Now what remains is the correction of entry in revenue records in respect of the land in question, for which Annexure R5(a) application was made before the Tahsildar, Mallappally, which was followed by Annexure R5(c) application dated 24.11.2023 before the additional 12[th] respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), Mallappally, made pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure R5(b) letter dated 10.11.2023 of the additional 12[th] respondent. 17. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the additional 12[th] respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), Mallappally shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Annexure R5(a) and Annexure (c) applications for correction of BTR, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 18. In such circumstances, this DBP is disposed of by directing the additional 12[th] respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), Mallappally to consider appropriate orders on Annexures R5(a) and R5(c) applications made by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner for correction of BTR, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to the affected parties, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two 22 DBP No.56 of 2023 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The 5[th] respondent Travancore Devaswom Board and the 1[st] respondent Devaswom Commissioner shall take necessary steps to ensure that the Kalyana Mandapam at Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple is put to use, after providing proper facilities including provision for drinking water, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. An action taken report by the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be placed before the learned Ombudsman, along with a copy of the Board decision fixing rent for the Kalyana Mandapam, within a period of four months from the date of this order. It would be open to the learned Ombudsman to file fresh reports before this Court, in case further directions are necessary in this matter. **Sd/-** ``` Sd/- ``` **G. GIRISH, JUDGE** vgd 23 DBP No.56 of 2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF DBP 56/2023`** ## **`RESPONDENTS’ ANNEXURES`** ``` ANNEXURE-R5(A)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/10/2023 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVALLA TO THE TAHSIL- DAR, MALLAPPALLY. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-R5(B)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR (LR), MALLAPPALLY TO THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, THIRUVALLA. ``` ``` ANNEXURE-R5(C)TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/11/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COM- MISSIONER (IN-CHARGE), THIRUVALLA TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR), MALLAPPALLY. ```