Disposed

Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022WP(C)/13696/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two linked writ petitions regarding temple land encroachment and road obstruction. It held non-impleadment of petitioners in the cross-petition amounted to suppression of facts. The Court ordered removal of concrete pillars and directed the Board to protect Devaswom property.

What did the court decide?

Concrete pillars to be removed within one week; Board directed to initiate proceedings against encroachers.

Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi Vs Travancore… — Property and Title | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/25TH KARTHIKA,

¶7

¶8

WP(C) NO. 13696 OF 2022

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

UDAYANAPURAM KSHETRA UPADESAKA SAMITHI
UDAYANAPURAM SRI.SUBRAMANYASWAMI TEMPLE, REP. BY
ITS PRESIDENT, V.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT VILANGANATT, UDAYANAPURAM

¶11

P.O.,VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 143.

¶12

BY ADVS.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SNEHA ROSE
P.S.ARUNA

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, TRIVANDRUM 695 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

2 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, VAIKKOM TEMPLE, VAIKKOM GROUP, VAIKKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 141.

¶16

3 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER UDAYANAPURAM SUB GROUP DEVASWOM BOARD, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 141.

¶17

4 PARAMESWARAN BATTATHIRI NEDUVELI MANA, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM - 686 141.

¶18

-2-

¶19

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶20

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (LAW & ORDER)

¶21

VAIKKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM -
686 141.

¶22

*ADDL.R6 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND CONSERVANCY) TRAVANCORE DEVASSWOM BOARD, NANDANKODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003. ( IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20-05-2022).

¶23

*ADDL.R7 THE TAHSILDAR(LR)

¶24

TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-
686141.
(ADDITIONAL R7 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 6-7-2022).

¶25

*ADDL.R8 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

¶26

CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THYCAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.
(ADDITIONAL R8 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 13-07-2022).

¶27

BY ADVS.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

¶28

P.DEEPAK

¶29

SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).14763/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

-3-

¶32

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶38

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/25TH KARTHIKA,

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 14763OF 2022

¶41

PETITIONER:

¶42

N.P.PARAMESWARAN BHATTATHIRI, AGED 85 YEARS
S/O. N.S.PARAMESWARAN BHATTATHIRI, RESIDING AT
NEDUVELI MANA, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM-686141.

¶43

BY ADV P.DEEPAK

¶44

RESPONDENTS:

¶45

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, DISTRICT POLICE HEADQUARTERS, KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686002.

¶46

2 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

¶47

VAIKOM, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686141.

¶48

3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686141.

¶49

4 V.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, VILANGANATT, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM686143.

¶50

BY ADVS.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
SNEHA ROSE
P.S.ARUNA

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).13696/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

-4-

¶53

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶56

Since common issue is raised, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 is one filed by the Temple

¶58

Advisory Committee of Udayanapuram Sree Subramanyaswami Temple, which is under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to initiate steps to recover, in accordance with law, 8 cents of land belonging to the Travancore Devaswom Board, on the northern side of the Udayanapuram Temple, alleged to have been encroached by the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent Sub Inspector of Police not to harass the petitioner or the employees of the temple, by insisting to remove

¶59

the concrete pillars installed in the private road of the Travancore Devaswom Board, as a restriction for the entry of heavy vehicles. The further relief sought for is a writ of

¶60

-5-

¶61

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶62

mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent not to take any action in pursuance of Ext.P1 notice dated 02.04.2022 issued to

¶63

the 3^rd respondent, compelling the petitioner or the employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board to remove the concrete pillars installed in the private road belonging to the Board, as a restriction for the entry of the heavy vehicles.

¶64

2.1. On 08.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for

¶65

admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 5^th respondent. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to the 4^th respondent, returnable by 12.04.2022. The learned Standing Counsel and also the learned Senior Government Pleader were directed to get instructions.

¶66

2.2. On 12.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for consideration before the Vacation Bench, it was observed that the content of Ext.P1 is only to the effect that ingress and egress of the 4^th respondent shall not be obstructed and therefore, the Vacation Bench found no reason to pass an ad interim order, as

¶67

-6-

¶68

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶69

against the same.

¶70

W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 is one filed by the 4^th

¶71

respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 on 25.04.2022, seeking

¶72

a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith enforce Ext.P6 directive dated 02.04.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022] and ensure free and unhindered vehicular access to his property, taking into account Ext.P9 order dated 12.04.2022 of the Vacation Bench in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 4^th respondent, for causing wilful obstruction to a public pathway and endangering the life and liberty of the petitioner and his ailing wife.

¶73

3.1. On 29.04.2022, when this writ petition came up for

¶74

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 4^th respondent. In view of Ext.P9 order dated 12.04.2022 of the Vacation Bench in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court granted an interim order directing the 3^rd respondent to forthwith enforce Ext.P6 directive and thereby

¶75

-7-

¶76

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶77

ensure free and unhindered vehicular access to the petitioner’s property.

¶78

On 19.05.2022, when W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 was

¶79

taken up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of this Court that, on 25.04.2022, the 4^th respondent herein filed W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the District Police Chief and two others to forthwith enforce the directives dated 02.04.2022 issued by the 5^th respondent the Station House Officer to the Sub Group Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board, Udayanapuram Sub Group. A copy of the interim order dated 29.04.2022 in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 is made available for the perusal of this Court. From the said order dated 29.04.2022, we noticed that neither the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group Officer, nor the Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi, the petitioner in this writ petition, are made parties to W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022. The directive issued by the Station House Officer dated 02.04.2022, which is Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, is marked as Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022. Therefore, Registry was directed to

¶80

-8-

¶81

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶82

list W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 on 20.05.2022, along with W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022.

¶83

On 20.05.2022, when W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 was taken up for consideration along with W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board filed a statement in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The 4^th respondent therein was directed to file an affidavit in reply, if found necessary, before the next posting date. Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 was directed to file a reply affidavit, if any, to the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, before the next posting date. By the order dated 20.05.2022, we have appointed an Advocate Commissioner to conduct an inspection of the disputed pathway. Paragraphs 3 to 10 of that order read thus;

¶84

“3. As already noticed in the order dated 19.05.2022, directives dated 02.04.2022 issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom [Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022] contains a direction to the Sub Group Officer, Vaikom Sub Group. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14736 of 2022 has chosen to file that writ petition, during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, in which he is the 4^th respondent, without impelading the Travancore Devaswom Board or the concerned Sub Group

¶85

-9-

¶86

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶87

Officer or the Temple Advisory Committee of Udayanapuram Sri Subramanyaswami Kshetram.

¶88

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dattatreya and others v Mahaveer [(2004) 10 SCC 665], in certain circumstances, non impleadment of affected parties in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would amount to deliberate suppression of material facts.

¶89

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record, and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we deem it appropriate to depute an Advocate Commissioner to conduct inspection of the disputed pathway and to submit a report before this Court along with a sketch, showing the lie of disputed pathway and any other pathway/road, through which the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 is having access to his property.

¶90

Smt.Bincymol K. (K/478/2013) is appointed as the Advocate Commissioner, who shall conduct inspection of the disputed pathway on 21.05.2022 at 11.00 a.m. The concerned Village Officer shall render necessary assistance to the learned Advocate Commissioner, to prepare a proper sketch.

¶91

The concerned Station House Officer shall depute a woman Police Officer at the time of inspection by the learned Advocate Commissioner.

¶92

It would be open to both sides to submit a work memo to the learned Advocate Commissioner. The remuneration of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed as Rs.30,000/-

¶93

-10-

¶94

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶95

(Rupees Thirty Thousand only), which shall be paid by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022.

¶96

The learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.14763 of 2022 would submit that the remuneration of the Advocate Commissioner shall be paid at the time of inspection.

¶97

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 is directed to place on record a copy of the title deed of his property and also the building permit and the approved plan obtained for constructing the compound wall.”

¶98

On 25.05.2022, when the above matters were taken up for consideration, the learned Advocate Commissioner filed the report. The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 sought further time to place on record the title deed, building permit and approved plan, in terms of the order dated 20.05.2022. On 21.06.2022, after hearing the learned counsel on both sides at length, this Court directed the Sub Group Officer to be personally present in Court, on 28.06.2022 at 4.00 p.m., along with the relevant files. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the relevant extract of the BTR and survey sketch in respect of the disputed property, through the concerned Tahsildar.

¶99

-11-

¶100

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶101

On 28.06.2022, though the Sub Group Officer was personally present in Court, he was not in a position to explain the matter effectively. Therefore, this Court directed the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner to be personally present in Court, on 06.07.2022 at 2.00 p.m, with the relevant files. On 06.07.2022, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, who was personally present in Court, submitted that a joint survey by the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) and the Tahsildar (LR), Vaikom is proposed to be conducted, since out of 3.03 acres of land, the Devaswom is having only an extent of 1.62 acres, for which Ext.R1(e) request dated 12.04.2021 has already made before the Tahsildar (LR). The learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the Tahsildar (LR) as to the date on which such joint inspection can be conducted, with notice to the parties to these writ petitions and also to other affected parties.

¶102

On 05.08.2022, the learned Senior Government

¶103

Pleader submitted that the original survey records could not be traced out by the additional 8^th respondent. Therefore, some more time is required for conducting the survey. The learned

¶104

-12-

¶105

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶106

Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions as to whether the Board is having the plan of the temple property, which can be utilised for conducting the survey. On 10.08.2022, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the Board is having the Settlement Register, Basic Tax Register and also the Land Register. The survey plan of the temple property is not available with the Board. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that, since the original survey records could not be traced out by the additional 8^th respondent, a joint survey by the officials of the Revenue Department and the additional 6^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) can be conducted on 25.08.2022 with the available records and also the Litho map.

¶107

Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a statement on 20.05.2022 in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4^th respondent producing therewith Annexure R4(a) to R4(f) documents. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the said respondent, producing therewith Exts.R4(g) to R4(i). Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter

¶108

-13-

¶109

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶110

affidavit, along with Exts.R1(a) to R1(f).

¶111

Additional 7^th respondent Special Tahsildar in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 has filed a counter affidavit dated 21.10.2022. Along with the counter affidavit, a copy of the site

¶112

plan is placed on record as Ext.R7(a) and copy of the relevant

¶113

portion of the settlement register of Vadakkemuri Village is produced as Ext.R7(b). Paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit reads thus;

¶114

“2. It is submitted that the direction of this Hon’ble High Court a joint inspection was conducted with notice to the parties to these writ petitions and also other affected parties on 25.07.2022. A team of Surveyors under the supervision of Head Surveyors conducted the survey with the help of available survey records. Since measurement sketches are not available is layout map was prepared with the help of Settlement Register. Litho map based on the land actually possessed by the Devaswom. After that with notice to all parties the survey process was completed by the survey team, with the help of total station machines on 13.09.2022. As per Settlement Register the land in Sy.No.13/9B is in the name of Devaswom having an extent of 3 Acre 3 Cent and Sy.No.13/9C is a purmaboke land having an extent of 41 Cents. Land in Sy.No.13/9A having an extent of 10 cent was in the possession of Vathukodathu Moothathu Narayanan Neelakandan. Since the measurement sketch for 13/9A, 9B, 9C are not

¶115

-14-

¶116

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶117

available separately, the total extent of 13/9 is measured as per possession and found that the total extent is 1.4124 Hectares (3 Acre 49 cents). The total area as per Settlement Register is 3 Are 54 Cents. The difference between the settlement area and the actual measurement area is 5 cents. Also found that that the land in Sy.No.13/8 a purambike land. A true copy of the Site Plan issued by the Tahsildar (LR), Vaikom is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R7(a). True copy of relevant portion of settlement register of Vadakkemuri Village is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R7(b).” (underline supplied) 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the

¶118

respective writ petitions, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the official respondents and also the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶119

As already noticed in the order dated 19.05.2022, the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 filed W.P.(C)No. 14763 of 2022 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the District Police Chief and two others to forthwith enforce the directives dated 02.04.2022 issued by the Station House Officer to the Sub Group Officer. In W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022, the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group Officer and the Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi are not

¶120

-15-

¶121

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶122

made parties. The directive issued by the Station House Officer dated 02.04.2022 [which is Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 and Ext.P6 in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022] contains a direction to the concerned Sub Group Officer. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the 4^th respondent could not offer satisfactory explanation for filing W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022, during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, without the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group Officer and the Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi in the party array. The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 85 years, obtained an interim order in that writ petition, behind the back of the Travancore Devaswom Board, the concerned Sub Group Officer and also the Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dattatreya and others v Mahaveer [(2004) 10 SCC 665] , in the facts and circumstances of the cases on hand, non-impleadment of affected parties in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 filed by the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022 amounts to deliberate suppression of material facts. We deprecate in the strongest words, the conduct of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022,

¶123

-16-

¶124

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶125

in filing W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022 during the pendency of W.P.(C)No.14763 of 2022, without the affected parties in the party array. Considering the fact that he is a senior citizen aged 85 years, we refrain ourselves from proceeding further on the above aspect.

¶126

13. Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per Section 3, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of Hindu Religious Endowments and all their properties and funds as well as the fund constituted under the Devaswom Proclamation, 1097 M.E. and the surplus fund constituted under the Devaswom (Amendment) Proclamation, 1122 M.E. which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July, 1949, except the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple, Sree Pandaravaka properties and all other properties and funds of the said temple, and the management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department shall vest in the Travancore

¶127

-17-

¶128

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶129

Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal with power to hold and acquire properties for and on behalf of the incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms

¶130

and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments under the management of the Board.

¶131

As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the

¶132

practice prevalent in the religious institutions are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative officials and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu religious institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in the temples for the devotees.

¶133

Section 27 of the Act deals with Devaswom properties. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. As per Section 31, subject to the provisions of Part I and the rules made thereunder, the Board shall manage the properties and affairs of the Devaswoms, both incorporated and

¶134

-18-

¶135

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶136

unincorporated as heretofore, and arrange for the conduct of the daily worship and ceremonies and of the festivals in every temple according to its usage.

¶137

'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] 17. 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

¶138

-19-

¶139

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶140

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.

¶141

18. 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,

¶142

-20-

¶143

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶144

the truth of the same can be gone into by the High Court in these proceedings.

¶145

From the affidavit filed by the additional 7^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, we notice that the disputed pathway is Government Purmboke, which has been specifically marked in Ext.R7(a) site plan. The total extent of the temple property is 3.54 Acres in Survey No.13/9 of Vaikom Vadakkemuri Village. In the joint survey it was found that an extent of 3.49 Acres land is available within the boundaries of

¶146

the temple property, as shown in the site plan. There is a shortage of 5 cents. In case any extent of temple property is encroached upon by third parties, the Travancore Devaswom Board has to initiate appropriate proceedings against the encroachers, in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum, in order to protect Devaswom property. The disputed pathway is having an extent of 26 cents in Sy.No.13/8. In connection with the temple festival, the procession goes through the said pathway. The said fact is not in serious dispute. There is also a ‘Kaanikkavanchi’ at the northern end of that pathway. The disputed pathway, though a puramboke land, has to be

¶147

-21-

¶148

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶149

maintained as such, without any encroachments or damage. It is for the official respondents to ensure the same. The said pathway, which is being used by the devotees and also the general public, cannot be used for the regular movement of heavy vehicles. It is for the Station House Officer, Vaikom, to ensure the same. The concrete pillars erected on the said pathway, as evidenced by Ext.R4(a) photographs in the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.13696 of 2022, if not already removed, shall be removed within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶150

With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed

¶151

of.

¶152

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶153

Sd/-

¶154

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶155

¶156

-22-

¶157

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶158

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13696/2022

¶159

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶160

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2/4/2022
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT.

¶161

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED NOTICE
DATED 5/4/2022 GIVEN BY
ADV.V.MANOMOHAN TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶162

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶163

Exhibit R4(A) PRINTOUTS OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE
OBSTRUCTIONS MADE TO THE ROAD IN
QUESTION

¶164

Exhibit R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
30/03/2022 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RECEIPT

¶165

Exhibit R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
02/04/2022 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH
RESPONDENT

¶166

Exhibit R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
04/04/2022 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD

¶167

Exhibit R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
11/07/2020 ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BOARD

¶168

Exhibit R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY
THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN O.S
259/1992 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, VAIKOM

¶169

Exhibit R4(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED
(3086/1962) EXECUTED ON 14/09/1962

¶170

-23-

¶171

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶172

`Exhibit R4(H)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION` `DATED 11/07/2020 ADDRESSED TO THE` `COMMISSIONER TDB`
`Exhibit R4(I)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT` `FROM THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF VAIKOM` `VADEKKEMURI VILLAGE`
`Exhibit R1(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BTR OF VADAKKEMURI` `VILLAGE DATED NIL..`
`Exhibit R1(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24-02-` `2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,` `VADAKKEMURI TO THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,` `LC UNIT OF TDB.`
`Exhibit R1(C)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13-11-` `2021 PREPARED BY THE REVENUE` `INSPECTOR.`
`Exhibit R1(D)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE` `SUB GROUP OFFICER DATED 13-11-2021.`
`Exhibit R1(E)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-04-` `2021 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,` `L.C. UNIT OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM TO` `THE TAHSILDAR (L.R.) VAIKOM TALUK.`
`Exhibit R1(F)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-06-` `2022 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,` `L.C. UNIT OF TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD` `TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR) VAIKOM TALUK.`
`EXHIBIT R7(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ISSUED BY` `THE TAHSILDAR (LR), VAIKOM`
`EXHIBIT R7(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF` `SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF VADAKKEMURI` `VILLAGE`

¶173

-24-

¶174

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶175

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14763/2022

¶176

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶177

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE BASIC TAX REGIS` `SKETCH OF THE PROPE`	`RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM` `TER (BTR) WITH A` `RTY.`
`Exhibit P2`	`PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `OF THE POND IN THE` `PROPERTY.`	`THE RENOVATION WORK` `PETITIONER'S`
`Exhibit P3`	`PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE` `ERECTED BY THE 4TH`	`CONCRETE PILLARS` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `30.3.2022.`	`COMPLAINT DATED`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `2.4.2022.`	`COMPLAINT DATED`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT` `OFFICER, TRAVANCORE` `2.4.2022.`	`DIRECTIVE ISSUED BY` `TO THE SUB GROUP` `DEVASWOM BOARD ON`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `4.4.2022 ADDRESSED` `TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM`	`COMPLAINT DATED` `TO THE PRESIDENT,` `BOARD.`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `FILED IN WPC NO.136` `EXHIBITS).`	`COUNTER AFFIDAVIT` `96 OF 2022 (WITHOUT`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `IN WPC NO.13696 OF`	`ORDER DATED 12.4.2022` `2022.`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `13.4.2022 ADDRESSED` `RESPONDENT.`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `TO THE 3RD`

¶178

-25-

¶179

W.P.(C)Nos.13696 & 14763 of 2022

¶180

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE
THROUGH EMAIL BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT
AND THE PETITIONER'S SON.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.4.2022 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT WITHOUT ENCLOSURE.

Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayanapuram Kshetra Upadesaka Samithi v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baiju.v.Nair Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

P.M.Parameswaran Namboothiripad Vs the Deputy Commissioner,Hr & Cr,Kozhikod

Abhirami Vs Anoop

Shijumon.P Vs Amitha.K.N

Shyma M. Vs Saheedkutty

N.P.Parameswaran Bhattathiri Vs the District Police Chief