Allowed

C. Pankajakshan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC2 Sept 2022WP(C)/5012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court of Kerala considered the enforcement of an order to evict an occupant of temple land. With the petitioner absent and the 7th respondent not contesting, the court held it appropriate to make the interim order dated 29.08.2014 absolute and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order dated 29.08.2014 allowing the 4th respondent to shift the 7th respondent was made absolute, and the writ petition was disposed of.

C. Pankajakshan Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 11TH BHADRA, 1944 W.P.(C) NO. 5012 OF 2014

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 C. PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR, KONNIYADA HOUSE, PULINKUNNU VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, PRESIDENT, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CHERUVALLIKKAVU DEVASWOM, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SIVADAS M.C., NADUVILE VEEDU, PULINKUNNU VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, SECRETARY, TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, CHERUVALLIKKAVU DEVASWOM, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV SRI.S.MANU

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD OFFICE, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHANGANACHERRY, PIN-686101.

¶14

3 THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MANKOMBU, MANKOMBU P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688502.

¶15

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.5012 of 2014

¶18

5 THE LAND SPECIAL OFFICER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶19

6 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA-1.

¶20

7 SUBASH KADANKATH VEEDU, PULINKUNNU, ALAPPUZHA-688504. R1-R5 BY ADV SMT.A.SREEKALA, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R1-R5 SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD R6 BY SRI S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 02.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No.5012 of 2014

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Ajithkumar, J.

¶26

The petitioners are the President and Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee, Pulinkunnu Cheruvallikavu Devi Temple. They filed this Writ Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4^th respondent-Special Tahsildar to evict the 7^th respondent by implementing Ext.P2 order. It is contended that following the suggestion of the learned Ombudsman of the Travancore Devaswom Board that the 1^st respondent-Board may explore the possibility of allotting an alternative plot for the 7^th respondent to shift his residence, and then evict him from the Temple property, a plot was identified and allotted to him and issued Ext.P4 notice. But the 7^th respondent did not choose to surrender vacant possession of the Temple property, which is in his possession and respondents 1 to 5 did not take effective steps for implementing Ext.P2 order. It is in such circumstances, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

¶27

The Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board

¶28

¶29

W.P.(C) No.5012 of 2014

¶30

filed a counter affidavit for and on behalf of respondents 1 to 5. Those respondents invariably admitted the allegations in the Writ Petition. It is contended that the Revenue Department has already allotted 5 cents of land for the 7^th respondent to shift his residence, and therefore, it is only appropriate to implement Ext.P2.

¶31

Notice was served on the 7^th respondent, but he did not choose to appear before the Court or file any counter. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not turn up. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Senior Government Pleader are heard.

¶32

On 29.08.2014 this Court passed the following

¶33

order,-

¶34

"Prayer is to issue appropriate directions to the 4^th respondent to evict the 7^th respondent from the Temple land presently under his occupation within the Pulinkunnu Cheruvallikavu temple compound and permit him to temporarily occupy the portion of the Devaswom land marked as item "H" in Annexure II plan.

¶35

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.5012 of 2014

¶38

learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the learned Government Pleader. In spite of service of notice, the 7^th respondent is not appearing before this Court. We therefore permit the 4^th respondent to shift the 7^th respondent to the area marked as item 'H' in Annexure II plan and appropriate steps will be taken with notice to the 7^th respondent within a period of one month."

¶39

This Writ Petition was filed in the year 2014. The

¶40

petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 did not take any action, thereafter, for getting Exts.P2 and P4 orders enforced. In the

¶41

said circumstances, it is only appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition, making the interim order dated 29.4.2014 absolute, especially when the 7^th respondent did not come forward to contest the matter.

¶42

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶47

dkr

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.5012 of 2014

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5012/2014

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 13298 OF 2007. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-3-2012 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 5-1-2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-2-2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF TEMPLE COMPOUND PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE TEMPLE PROPERTY PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

C. Pankajakshan Nair v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Pankajakshan Nair 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini Muraleedharan, Vs Vivek Vayalan Veetil Mundayadam

Kuttan Unnithan, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

State of Kerala Vs George

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Arun Ashok Vs Arya D

Salman Bin Ameer Ali, Aged 40 Years, S/O. Ameer Vs Hasheen Mehamood, D/O.K.K.Mohammed, Aged 35 Years