Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. Vs Malabar Devaswam Board

Kerala HC29 Nov 2022WP(C)/1065/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a devotee, filed a writ petition directing respondents to refix boundaries and recover encroached land of Sree Dharma Shastha Temple. Since alleged encroachers were not parties, the Court disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits but directed the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional District Judge.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without expressing anything on merits; petitioner directed to move jurisdictional District Judge under Mrinalini Padhi directions.

Vinod Kumar v Vs Malabar Devaswam Board — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶7

1944

¶8

WP(C) NO.1065 OF 2020

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

VINOD KUMAR V AGED 38 YEARS S/O.VENU, AUTO DRIVER, VIJAYA NIVAS, LAKSHAM VEEDU, PALLIYANMOOLA, ALAVIL P.O., KANNUR-670 008.

¶11

BY ADV. MARY LIYA SABU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-676 003.

¶14

2 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWAM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-676 003.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, THALASSERY DIVISION, KANNUR-670 101.

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR-670 002.

¶17

5 TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR-670 002.

¶18

6 SREE DHARMA SHASTHA TEMPLE, CHALAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, CHALAD P.O., KANNUR-670 014.

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶20

SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN- STANDING COUNSEL -MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD ;

¶21

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶22

¶23

SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶26

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶29

The petitioner who is a devotee of Lord Dharma Shastha of Sree Dharma Shastha Temple, Chalad, the 6^th respondent herein, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devasom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to refix the boundaries of the landed property of the said temple, as described in Exts. P1 to P3, with notice to all the adjacent land owners. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 and also the 5^th respondent to recover portions of the temple property, if any, encroached upon by any person and to construct boundaries to the temple property in order to protect and preserve the same.

¶30

On 15.01.2020 when this writ petition came for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devasom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice for respondents 4 and 5. Notice was

¶31

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶32

¶33

ordered to 6^th respondent by speed post.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devasom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents 4 and 5 and also the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner, who is an ardent

¶36

devotee of Lord Dharma Shastha of Sree Dharma Shastha Temple, Chalad, which is a controlled institution under Malabar Devaswom Board is that the property of the temple having an extent of 6 Acres and 26 cents in Resurvey No.43/1 of Pallikkunnu Village in Kannur District, covered by Ext.P1 Adangal Extract and Ext.P2 Field Measurement Book, is encroached by the nearby residents. None of the alleged encroachers are made parties in this writ petition.

¶37

In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶40

¶41

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 directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

¶42

As already noticed herein before, none of the alleged encroachers of the temple property are made parties

¶43

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶44

¶45

to this writ petition.

¶46

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 materials and the affected parties in the party array.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.1065 of 2020

¶55

¶56

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT OF RESURVEY 43/1 OF PALLIKKUNNU VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF FIELD MEASUREMENT BOOK ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIKUKUNNU. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE TEMPLE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE TOWN SURVEYOR, KANNUR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22.10.2019 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF HE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Vinod Kumar v. Vs Malabar Devaswam Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. Vs Malabar Devaswam Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elizuba Ammu Philip Vs Jinu Thomas

Sajeev, Vs the State of Kerala

Amit Panikulam Rep. by Power of Attorney Holder Donny Panikulam Vs Chris Babu Abraham @ Babu a. Kallivayalil

Thuravoor Mahakshethra Upadeshaka Samithy Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

The Travancore Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director

C.G.Govindan Kutty, Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board