Petitioner sought direction for protection of encroached temple land. Court held the complaint (Ex.P3) was not filed properly before District Judge as per Apex Court order. Petitioner approached prematurely. Writ petition closed without deciding merits.
Writ petition closed without prejudice to right to approach District Judge complying with Ext.P2.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.6800 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER/S:
ARJUN, AGED 31 YEARS S/O RAMESH P,POWRNAMI,NEAR KADALAYI TEMPLE,CHIRACKAL.P.O, KANNUR-11.
BY ADVS. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SMT.E.S.SONI SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
-2-
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
-3-
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The petitioner, who is only a devottee of Thrikkoth Mahavishnu Kshetram of Thrikkoth Devaswom, has filed this writ petition alleging inaction on the part of the 4th respondent/Malabar Devaswom Board in recovering its encroached property despite receipt of complaint from the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following relief:
“a. direct the respondents to protect the land of the minor deity Thrikkoth Mahavishnu temple having an extent of 3.4 Acres of land situated in Sy.Nos.458/6, 458/7, 458/9, 458/10, 458/11 and 458/12 in Kannapuram village belongs to Thrikkoth Mahavishnu Kshetram of Thrikkoth Devaswom and maintain the same by evicting all encroachers and take such appropriate steps to secure the above said property by protecting it from encroachers and to take adequate step to ensure that above said property having extent of 3.4 Acres of land situated in Sy.Nos.458/6, 458/7, 458/9, 458/10, 458/11 and 458/12 in Kannapuram village is exclusively being used for temple purposes alone by the issue of a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction.”
-4-
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
that in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.649 of 2018 dated 05.07.2018, the petitioner moved Ext.P3 before the Hon'ble District Judge, Malappuram. However, no action whatsoever was taken thereon. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the 3rd respondent/Distruct Judge, Kannur to consider Ext.P3 as directed by the Apex Court in W.P.(C) No.649 of 2018.
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
-5-
direction to be issued to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action.
the same would not reveal that it was properly filed before the Hon'ble District Jude in terms of the directions in Ext.P2 order. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel would herself admit that Ext.P3 was sent by registered post. We may hasten to act that the method adopted by the petitioner cannot be appreciated, especially in the light of the order, which is relied on by the petitioner himself, viz. Ext.P2. A perusal of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ext.P2 would reveal that, persons who have grievance regarding encroachment of temple properties have to approach the District Judge concerned in an appropriate manner and what should be the course to be adopted on receipt of a complaint properly laid was also dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ext.P2 order. All such aspects are specifically dealt with in Paragraph 19 of Ext.P2 order.
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
-6-
that it is not the petition, which is properly filed before the District Judge in terms of Ext.P2. It was to say that, in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by the encroachment and desires to approach the District Judge, in terms of the orders of the Apex Court in Ext.P2, necessarily, the petitioner has to follow the steps recognised in law. Once it is evident that the petitioner has not approached the District Judge concerned, in the manner provided by law and especially in terms of Ext.P3, we are of the view that the direction sought for to the District Judge cannot be issued. It is also relevant to refer to sub-para (ix) of paragraph 19 of Ext.P2 order of the Apex Court in this context reads thus:
“ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the concerned High Court so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be
-7-
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
issued as my be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.”
District Judge, appropriately, necessarily the District Judge has to examine the matter and then submit a report only if a report is received that could be treated as public interest litigation on the judicial side by this Court and appropriate direction could be issued.
In the said circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely and in such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the District Judge concerned, in accordance with law and in terms of Ext.P2, this writ petition is closed.
sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
JUDGE
sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE
das
-8-
W.P.(C). No.6800 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE BTR EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C)NO.649/2018 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE,KANNUR.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to issue direction for protection of encroached temple property.
Whether Ex.P3 was properly filed before District Judge per Apex Court directions.
Whether petitioner approached Court prematurely without exhausting District Judge recourse.
ARJUN
STATE OF KERALA
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THAVAKKARA
DISTRICT JUDGE, KANNUR
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHIRAKKAL KOVILAKAM DEVASWOM
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
C.T.RAVIKUMAR and MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Parties & counsel
