Disposed

N.P.Kunhikkannan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2023WP(C)/21868/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a devotee alleging encroachment and misappropriation of temple properties. The High Court, exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, directed the petitioner to approach the District Judge for enquiry and report, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to approach the additional 10th respondent District Judge, Thalassery with a petition regarding encroachment of Devaswom land; the District Judge to conduct enquiry and forward

N.P.Kunhikkannan Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶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 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 14TH MAGHA, 1944
W.P.(C)NO.21868OF 2007

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

N.P. KUNHIKKANNAN, S/O.KUMARAN, NALUPURAPPATHIL
HOUSE, KADANNAPPALLI P.O., MANDOOR (VIA), KANNUR
DISTRICT.

¶9

*”NON HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE VELLALATH SIVA
TEMPLE, KANNUR”. ALLOWED TO PROSECUTE IN THE
ABOVE CAPACITY VIDE ORDER IN IA 15776/07
DT.27.11.2007

¶10

BY ADV P.SHEEBA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEVASWOM DEPT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK.

¶15

4 THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPT., KOZHIKODE.

¶16

IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS “THE COMMISSIONER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE – 673 006”.

¶17

5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HR & CE DEPT., THIRUNANGAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶18

6 TALIPARAMBA TALUK LAND BOARD, KANNUR.

¶19

7 P.T.BALAKRISHNAN S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, POTHERA THALAPURATH HOUSE, KADANNAPPALLI EAST, KADANNAPPALLI POST, MANDOOR VIA.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C)No.21868 of 2007

¶22

*ADDL.R8 RAJAN PALLIKKUNNU, S/O.O.V.KUNHAMBU, PALLIKKUNNIL HOUSE, CHITHAPILEPOYILE (PO), KANNUR DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R8 VIDE ORDER DATED 04.10.2007 IN I.A.NO.12972 OF 2007

¶23

*ADDL.R9 MATHRADAN PUTHIRAKKAL MADHUSOODANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI AMMA, EZHILODE, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, KANNUR IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R9 VIDE ORDER DATED 13/12/2007 IN I.A.NO.16361 OF 2007

¶24

*ADDL.R10 DISTRICT JUDGE, THALASSERY – 670 101 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS THE ADDITIONAL 10^TH RSPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 03/02/2023

¶25

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.AMARESAN
SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶26

SRI S.RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ;
SRI R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN - STANDING COUNSEL -
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

-3-

¶29

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶32

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly Village in Kannur, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs;

¶33

(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate necessary and effective action to measure the properties of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple mentioned in paragraph 4 of this writ petition and demarcate the survey boundary of the same;

¶34

(ii) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to keep in abeyance of all proceedings to assign the surplus land in RS.No.256/1 and 256/1B2 in Kadannappalli village till the entire landed property of the temple is measured and demarcated the boundary;

¶35

(iii) Direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate action to implement all recommendations made in Ext.P4 letter;

¶36

(iv) Direct the respondents 1 to 5 to take immediate necessary and effective steps to evict all encroachers from the landed property of Sree

¶37

-4-

¶38

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶39

Vellalath Siva Temple;

¶40

(v) Direct the 6^th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 and P8 application submitted by the temple authorities;

¶41

(iv) Direct the respondents 1 to 3 to prevent all sort quarrying of stones from the temple properties;

¶42

The grievance of the petitioner, which is highlighted

¶43

in this writ petition, is that the temple was having Jenmam

¶44

right over 3,000 Acres of land spread over in two villages namely Kadannappally and Pariyaram. Since the Ooralans and

¶45

the Executive Officers, who were in the management of the temple, have not taken care to protect the property of the temple, a large extent of the property is under the possession of third parties. As per the records available in the concerned village offices, the temple had 1069.35 Acres of land in Kadannappally Village and 862.64 Acres in Pariyaram Village, totalling to 1931.99 Acres. The details of the temple land furnished as in the 4^th paragraph of the writ petition read thus;

¶46

Kannur Taluk Kadannappalli Amsom Desom
R.S.No Extend (Acres)
221/6 0.18
221/13 0.02
221/14 0.12
221/15 0.08
221/16 0.58
221/17 0.10
229/2 0.26
239/2 0.16

¶47

-5-

¶48

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶49

239/3 0.66
256/1B 921.22
256/6 39.27
256/8 2.77
256/9 2.69
217/2A 3.44
217/2B 96.86
240/4 0.01
240/1 0.93
Taliparamba Taluk Pariyaram Amsom Vayad Desom
14/1A 759.34
14/1B 0.98
14/1C 0.84
16/1 9.65
16/2 91.83
Total 1931.95 Acres

¶50

On 01.08.2007, when this writ petition came up for

¶51

admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 6. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 7^th respondent. The petitioner was permitted to carry out publication in Mathruboomi daily Kannur Edition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as the non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple. By the order dated 27.11.2007 in I.A.No.21866 of 2007, the petitioner was permitted to prosecute this writ petition in his capacity as the non-hereditary of the said temple.

¶52

On 14.09.2007, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶53

“Heard counsel on either side. Counsel appearing for the

¶54

-6-

¶55

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶56

petitioner submitted that the property in question, covered by Rs.256/1B2 of Kadannappilly Amsom belongs to Kadannappilly Sree Vellalathu Siva Temple. The question is being examined by this Court. Counsel submitted that enquiry is going on as to whether the property is covered by the above mentioned survey number. Counsel appearing for the 7^th respondent submitted that he has got a valid ‘patta’ and also licence from the Geologist. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to give a direction to the District Collector to ascertain as to whether quarrying is going on in the area covered by R.S.No.256/1B2 of Kadannappilly Amsom without obtaining permission from the Geologist and other authorities. Communicate the order to the District Collector, Kannur.”

¶57

On 22.11.2007, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶58

“We have perused Ext.P3 report dated 22.12.2005 which is self-explanatory. Enquiry was conducted and report submitted on a specific direction given by the then Honourable Devaswom Minister, on a representation submitted by the temple authorities. Complaint was that large extent of property belongs to the temple were encroached upon illegally and pattayams were obtained by some of the encroachers from the Land Tribunal fraudulently and in connivance with the officers and the temple employees. Though the report was submitted, no action was taken by the Revenue authorities till today and

¶59

-7-

¶60

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶61

large scale quarrying operations are also going on in the properties mentioned in the report. Possibility of taking action against the encrochers in the light of the new Ordinance framed for the temples in Malabar area, has also to be examined.

¶62

Till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report, we are inclined to give a direction to the District Collector to see that no quarrying operations be carried out in the properties of the temple stated to have been encroached upon as mentioned in Ext.P3 report. Ordered accordingly. Communicate the order to the District Collector along with Ext.P3 report submitted by the Special Officer, for necessary action.”

¶63

On 27.11.2007, when this writ petition was taken

¶64

up for consideration, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that licenses issued for carrying out quarrying operations in the disputed land have already been cancelled.

¶65

On 25.03.2008, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar to identify the property referred to by the additional 8^th and 9^th respondents in their petition for modification and submit a report.

¶66

On 10.04.2008, when this matter came up for consideration, in I.A.No.521 of 2008, this Court granted an

¶67

-8-

¶68

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007 interim order directing the 2^nd respondent District Collector to measure and earmark the property of the petitioner extending 1 Acre 20 cents comprised in R.S.No.256/1B2 (O.S.209/1B1) of Kadannappallii Village covered by Exts.R7(a) to R7(f) and to file a report this Court.

¶69

On 02.07.2009, when this writ petition was taken

¶70

up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶71

“By an order dated 22.11.2007, an interim direction was issued by this Court directing the District Collector to see that no quarrying operation is carried on in the properties of the temple stated to have been encroached until a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report. Subsequently, by order dated 25.3.2008, this Court gave a further direction in the case of additional 8^th and 9^th respondents that the 3^rd respondent shall identify the property referred to by those respondents in their petition for modification and submit a report. The Tahsildar has filed a report dated 29.5.2008 which is produced by the learned Government Pleader as per memo dated 10^th June, 2008. Prima facie, it would appear from the report that the land was obtained by the Additional 8^th and 9^th respondents as per Registered deed. In the case of Additional 8^th respondent, he is stated to have obtained property in R.S.256/1B2 in Kadannappallly amsom, desom having an extent of 2.50 Acres as per Document No.2647/2005 of the Mathamangalam Sub Registry. The Additional 9^th respondent obtained 3 acres in R.S.No.256/ 1B2 in Kadanappally Amsom, desom, as per registered deed

¶72

-9-

¶73

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶74

No.2034/2005 of the Sub Registrar Office, Mathamangalam. Both of them paid land tax till 2007-08. The land in R.S.256/1B2 is large in extent and at present no quarrying or construction activities is done in the land in the possession of 8^th and 9^th respondent.

¶75

Therefore, after hearing the parties we modify the interim order and vacate the stay as against quarrying operations by Additional 8^th and 9^th respondent in their respective properties as identified by the Tahsildar. We make it clear that we are only vacating the stay granted by this Court and not permission granted. Hence if the quarrying is otherwise illegal, it is a separate matter to be dealt with by the concerned authority. We however find that the interim order is passed only till a final decision is taken on Ext.P3 report and it is unfortunate that the Malabar Devaswom Board has not finalized their decision on Ext.P3 report. In the circumstances, we direct to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months and take appropriate steps for recovery of Devaswom land either by filing civil suits or by informing the District Collector by initiating proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act.”

¶76

The 4^th respondent Commissioner has filed a statement dated 13.08.2007. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7^th respondent, producing therewith Exts.R7(a) to R7(d) documents. The additional 8^th respondent has also filed

¶77

counter affidavit, producing therewith Exts.R8(b) to R8(n). Along with a memo dated 12.02.2008 filed by the learned

¶78

-10-

¶79

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶80

Government Pleader, a copy of Ordinance No.2 of 2008 has been placed on record. To the counter affidavit filed by respondents 7 and 8, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 25.02.2008, producing therewith Exts.P13 to 15 documents. On 04.03.2008, the 7^th respondent filed an additional affidavit producing therewith Ext.R7(e) copy of Marupat Deed No.946/43 and Ext.R7(f) copy of Assignment Deed No.1368/59. Along with a memo dated 10.06.2008, the learned Government Pleader has placed on record, the report No.K2-22368/07 dated 29.05.2008 of the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar. The 2^nd respondent District Collector has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.01.2010. Counter affidavit dated 13.10.2010 of the 4^th respondent Commissioner has also been filed, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(c) documents.

¶81

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board and also the learned counsel for the party respondents.

¶82

The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted in this matter, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article

¶83

-11-

¶84

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶85

226 of the Constitution of India, based on the grievances highlighted by the petitioner in Ext.P6 application, which contains an allegation to the effect that certain properties of the Devaswom are being distributed as surplus land to landless

¶86

farmers without the knowledge of temple authorities.

¶87

'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]

¶88

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

¶89

-12-

¶90

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶91

acts of ‘fences 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 of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

¶92

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan , on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of

¶93

-13-

¶94

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶95

was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the

¶96

-14-

¶97

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶98

High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶99

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan

¶100

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

¶101

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

¶102

-15-

¶103

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶104

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.

¶105

In Mohanan Nair the Division Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai v. State of Kerala [1970 KLT 838] , wherein a Full Bench of this Court considered the validity of an order passed by the Government under Section 99 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. By the said order the Government cancelled the sanction given for transfer of immovable property of a Devaswom. The initial order, i.e., Ext.P1 order was passed by the Commissioner for sanction to lease 600 acres of forest land belonging to Emoor Bhagavathy Devaswom. The said order was passed in the year 1960 and the Government cancelled the same by Ext.P5 order dated 23.02.1967. The Full Bench traced the principles regarding the rights of an authority to protect the institution like Devaswom in order to prevent fraud. The Full Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction

¶106

-16-

¶107

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶108

and thereby to make null and void an improvident transfer or alienation of immovable property of a Devaswom, though exercised under the guise of revision, is visitorial in character. It is a matter of common knowledge that even from very early times religious and charitable institutions in India came under the special protection of the ruling authority. The rulers of the country always asserted their right to visit these institutions in order to prevent fraud and redress the abuses in their management. In the celebrated Rameswar Pagoda case [(1874) 1 Ind App 209] it was pointed out by the Judicial Committee that the former rulers of this country always asserted the right to visit endowments of this kind to prevent and redress the abuses in their management. The authorities, therefore, support the conclusion that supervision and control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Institutions is a function of government and that Government at all times asserted and exercised the power. The fact that Government did not exercise the power immediately when it became aware of the circumstances vitiating Ext.P1 order cannot prejudice the interest of the Devaswom. If the contention of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government

¶109

-17-

¶110

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶111

was not very vigilant in exercising the power the interest of the Devaswom should suffer. Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non-feasance of a trustee.

¶112

In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC

¶113

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 with regard to all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that

¶114

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

¶115

-18-

¶116

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶117

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

¶118

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.

¶119

In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others

¶120

[2018 (2) KHC 58] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that 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

¶121

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

¶122

-19-

¶123

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶124

assignment/conveyance has been effected without

¶125

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.

¶126

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board [2018 (3) KHC 549] a Division Bench of this Court found that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy.No.1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court [A.A. Gopalakrishnan - (2007) 7 SCC 482]. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy.No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the ‘parens patriae’ jurisdiction being entrusted with the Court in this regard and there is a duty cast

¶127

-20-

¶128

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶129

upon the Court to take every step to ensure that the property

¶130

of the deity is protected.

¶131

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the term of the petitioner as a non-hereditary trustee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple is already over. The learned counsel would point out that, the petitioner was prosecuting this writ petition as a devotee of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, till this Court permitted him to prosecute the writ petition in his capacity as a nonhereditary trustee of the said temple.

¶132

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, we notice that based on Ext.P2 representation dated 24.08.2005 submitted by the Trustee Board of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, before the 1^st respondent State, a special team consisting of one retired Deputy Collector, one retired Tahsildar and one retired Deputy Tahsildar was appointed under the Special Officer, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. The special team, after verifying the available records in the temple and the respective Village offices, submitted Ext.P3 report

¶133

-21-

¶134

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶135

22.12.2005 before the Special Officer. Ext.P3 report contains

¶136

the details of the landed properties owned by the temple, as per the available records, and the list of persons who are in illegal occupation of the temple property, with patta number, survey number, etc. On receipt of Ext.P3 report, the Special Officer forwarded the same to the 1^st respondent State, along with Ext.P4 covering letter dated 17.04.2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents 1 to 5 are not taking any positive action in the matter and the temple properties is being encroached indiscriminately by third parties who have created false documents to assert their right over the same. Several persons who are in illegal occupation of the temple property obtained false documents influencing the revenue officials by manipulating revenue records. The 7^th respondent is one such person who is in illegal occupation of the temple property. As the encroachers are numerous the 7^th respondent is made a respondent in this writ petition, in a representative capacity, representing all the encroachers of Devaswom land. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] the petitioner is directed to approach the additional 10^th respondent District

¶137

-22-

¶138

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶139

Judge, Thalassery with a petition pointing out his grievances regarding encroachment of the Devaswom land of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, enclosing therewith a certified copy of this judgment and supporting materials including Ext.P3 report of the special team. The additional 10^th respondent District Judge shall conduct a proper enquiry on the grievances of the petitioner regarding encroachment of the Devaswom land of Sree Vellalath Siva Temple, Kadannappilly, with notice to the petitioner and the alleged encroachers, including respondents 7 to 9, and the report of the District Judge shall be forwarded to this Court within a period of four months from the date of

¶140

receipt of a copy of that petition.

¶141

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶142

Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶143

Sd/-

¶144

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶145

AV/10/2

¶146

-23-

¶147

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶148

APPENDIX

¶149

`PETITIO`	`NER’S EXHIBITS`	`:`
`EXT.P1`		`COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3`^RD
		`RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2006`
`EXT.P2`		`COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED`
		`24.08.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE TRUSTEE` `BOARD CHAIRMAN TO THE HON’BLE`
		`MINISTER`
`EXT.P3`		`COPY FO THE REPORT DATED 22.12.2005` `AND THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE` `SPECIAL TEAM TO THE SPECIAL OFFICER`
`EXT.P4`		`COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.04.2005` `SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL OFFICER TO` `THE 1`^ST`RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P5`		`COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.12.205` `ISSUED TO THE 1`^ST`RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P6`		`COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED`
		`24.01.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE` `PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2`^ND`RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P7`		`COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED` `13.02.2004 ISSUED BY THE 2`^ND `RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P8`		`COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN` `TLB.39/1973/TBA BEFORE THE 6`^TH `RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P9`		`COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN` `TLB.40/1973/TBA BEFORE THE 6`^TH `RESPONDENT`
`EXT.P9`	`(SIC:EXT.P10)`	`COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED` `15.06.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE`
		`DISTRICT OFFICER, MINING & GEOLOGY` `DEPT., KANNUR`

¶150

-24-

¶151

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶152

EXT.P10 SIC:EXT.P11) COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT

¶153

PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY

¶154

DATED 8.8.2007

¶155

EXT.P11 SIC:EXT.P12) COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

¶156

20.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,
KADANNAPPALLI-PANAPPUZHA GRAMA

¶157

PANCHAYATH

¶158

EXT.P12 SIC:EXT.P13) COPY OF THE ORDER

¶159

NO.A3(KIDS)911/2006 DATED 4.8.2007
PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P8(a) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 23.11.2007
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE
PETITIONER

¶160

EXT.P13(SIC:EXT.P14) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REGISTER OF LILST OF TEMPLES KEPT IN
THE DEPARTMENT IN 1940
EXT.P14 SIC:EXT.P15) COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRP
NO.1561/90 DATED 10.12.96
EXT.P15(SIC:EXT.P16) COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
FIT PERSON TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXT.P16(SIC:EXT.P17) TRUE COPY OF THE “ADANGAL’ ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALLY
EXT.P17(SIC:EXT.P18) A COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER KADANNAPPALY
EXT.P18(SIC:EXT.P19) A COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
10/5/2009 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

¶161

EXT.R8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS
NO.122/2005
EXT.R8(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.1105/05

¶162

-25-

¶163

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶164

EXT.R8(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
EXT.R8(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED
BEFORE THE SUB COURT
EXT.R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE
CERTIFICATE DT.05.08.1976 ISSUED BY
LAND TRIBUNAL
EXT.R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE
CERTIFICATE DT.05.08.1976 ISSUED BY
LAND TRIBUNAL
EXT.R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DEED
EXECUTED ON 14.08.2007 BETWEEN THE
7TH RESPONDENT AND PADINHAPRATHU
BABU
EXT.R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MINING PERMIT ALONG
WITH SITE PLANS
EXT.R8(b) TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED JENM SALE
(SIC:R9(b)) DEED NO.693/2005 OF SRO
MATHAMANGALAM
EXT.R8(c)(SIC:R9(c)) TRUE COPY OF MARUPAT 1486/94 DATED
NIL
EXT.R8(d) (SIC:R9(d) TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT
DEED NO.390/1955 OF SRO,
MATHAMNGALAM DATED NIL
EXT.R8(d) (SIC:R9(d) TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED WITH
SCHEDULE A DATED 5.5.1976
EXT.R8(e) (SIC:R9(e) TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED WITH
SCHEDULE A DATED 5.5.1976
EXT.R8(f) (SIC:R9(f) TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
BEARING NO.19731/76 DATED 13.08.1976
EXT.R8(g) (SIC:R9(g) TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT
DEED NO.1949/93 OF SRO,
MATHAMANGALAM

¶165

-26-

¶166

W.P.(C). No.21868 of 2007

¶167

EXT.R8(h) (SIC:R9(h) TRUE COPY OF JENM RIGHT FROM KANNUR DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND TRIBUNAL AS

¶168

	`PER PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.339/98`
	`DATED 20.10.98 THROUGH S.M.NO.390/93`
`EXT.R8(i) (SIC:R9(i)`	`TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED` `05.10.06`
`EXT.R8(j) (SIC:R9(j)`	`TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED` `FOR THE PERIOD 2007-08 DATED` `23.11.2007`
`EXT.R8(k) (SIC:R9(k)`	`TRUE COPY OF SKETCH DATED 14.3.2006`
`EXT.R8(l) (SIC:R9(l)`	`TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE` `DATED 14.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE` `VILLAGE OFFICER`
`EXT.R8(m) (SIC:R9(m)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED` `28.2.2007`
`EXT.R8(n) (SIC:R9(n)`	`TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED` `22.08.2007`
`EXT.R7(e)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MARUPAT DEED` `NO.946/43`
`EXT.R7(f)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED` `NO.1368/59`
`EXT.R4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.J4-` `609/2008/MDB DATED 29.10.2008`
`EXT.R4(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE` `PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (P)` `SECTION NO.33482/P1/2009/REVENUE` `DATED 28/7/2009`
`EXT.R4(c)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J-3-`
	`6394/07/MDB DATED 31-8-09 ISSUED BY` `THE 4`^TH`RESPONDENT`

N.P.Kunhikkannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Kunhikkannan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratheesh K Alias Ratheesan Namboodiri Vs the Commissioner

Sayana Vs Abdul Razak Ebrahim

Praveen G Vs Saranya Venugopal

Priya R Nair Vs Renjith R Nair

Biju Mathew Vs Annamma @ Roshini

Shajan V.S. Vs Nisha Shajan