Disposed

Joythish. S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2024WP(C)/30586/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A devotee alleged that a Brahmana Samooham constructed shop rooms on Devaswom land of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple. The High Court, invoking parens patriae jurisdiction over temple properties, directed the Special Tahsildar to survey the disputed land within three months using available and archival records, with status quo maintained pending completion, without deciding title.

What did the court decide?

Survey of disputed land by Special Tahsildar within three months with notice to parties; interim status quo maintained till then.

Joythish. S Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶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 G. GIRISH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 13TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 30586 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JOYTHISH S., AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. SASIDHARAN,
PUTHENPARAMBIL, VALIYAKULANGARA SOUTH, MAHADEVIKAD
P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690516

¶9

BY ADV SHAMEEL N.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶13

3 THE COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOM, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶14

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY UNIT) TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, NANDHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶15

5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF DEVASWOM TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HARIPAD GROUP, HARIPAD P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690514

¶16

6 THE SECRETARY, KARTHIKAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KARTHIKAPPALLY P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690516

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶19

7 ADV.S. KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE. SUBRAHMANYA IYER, AMPANAT MADOM, MAHADEVIKAD P.O, KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690 516, NOW RESIDING AT AMPANAT 39/468, MONASTERY ROAD, KARIKKAMURY, KOCHI- ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011

¶20

*ADDL.R8 THE KARTHIKAPPALLY BRAHMANA SAMOOHAM REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT ADV.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE SUBRAHMANYA IYER, AMPANAT MADOM, MAHADEVIKAD P.O., KARTHIKAPPALLY VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA 690 516, NOW RESIDING AT AMPANAT 39/468, MONASTERY ROAD, KARIKKAMURY, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT [ADDITIONAL R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 IN I.A.01/2023 IN WP(C)30586/2023.]

¶21

*ADDL.R9 TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT690 516

¶22

IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.01.2024 IN W.P.(C)No.30586 OF 2023

¶23

*ADDL.R10 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, CIVIL STATION, SECOND FLOOR, ALISSERY ROAD, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001

¶24

*ADDL.R11 THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003

¶25

ADDL.R10 AND R11 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 02.02.2024 IN W.P.(C)No. 30586 OF 2023

¶26

BY ADVS.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
SNEHA ROSE
SRI S.RAJMOHAN - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ;
SRI G.SANTHOSH KUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL -TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD ;

¶27

SRI G.BENO - STANDING COUNSEL FOR R6 ;
SRI S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR ) FOR R8

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶33

The petitioner, who is a devotee and worshiper of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 2^nd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to recover the properties of the deity of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple, comprised in Survey Nos.3752, 3755 A, B, C, 3756 A, B, 3760, 3761 A, B of Karthikappally Village, covered by Exts.P1 and P2 land tax receipts, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy Unit), Travancore Devaswom Board to act on Ext.P4 representation dated 10.08.2023, in a time bound manner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 6^th respondent Secretary of Karthikappally Grama Panchayat to keep in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to the applications made by the 7^th respondent for regularisation of the illegal construction of the building in the disputed property and change of ownership of the existing building in the properties under Ext.P1, till Ext.P4 complaint is

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶36

finally disposed of by the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar.

¶37

On 19.09.2023, when this writ petition came up for

¶38

admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 1^st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for Karthikappally Grama Panchayat for the 6^th respondent. This Court issued notice on admission by special messenger to the 7^th respondent and also to additional 8^th respondent returnable by 21.09.2023.

¶39

On 21.09.2023, when this writ petition came up for

¶40

consideration, after considering the arguments made at the Bar,

¶41

this Court passed a detailed order, which reads thus;

¶42

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent State, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5, the learned Standing Counsel for Karthikappally Grama Panchayat for the 6^th respondent, the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent Karthikappally Brahmana Samooham and also the 7^th respondent, who appeared in-person.

¶43

The issue raised in this writ petition centers around an extent of land in Karthikappally Village. According to the petitioner, who is a devotee of Valiyakulangara Devi Temple, which is a temple under the management of Travancore Devaswom Board, the shop rooms in Ext.P3 photographs are constructed in the Devaswom land. The President of the

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶46

additional 8^th respondent Samooham is in the party array as the 7^th respondent, in his personal capacity, in view of the allegations in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition. Similar allegations are there in paragraph 4 of Ext.P4 representation.

¶47

The learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham would dispute the claim of the petitioner that the shop rooms are constructed in the Devaswom land. According to the learned Senior Counsel, that construction has been made in the property owned by Brahmana Samooham.

¶48

The 7^th respondent, who appeared in person, would submit that the allegations levelled against him in the writ petition and in Ext.P4 representation are absolutely baseless and that, necessary documents shall be placed on record to show the derivation of title by the Brahmana Samooham in respect of the disputed land.

¶49

From the submissions made by the 7^th respondent, who appeared in person, and that made by the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent, it prima facie appears that the documents relating to derivation of title by the Brahmana Samooham in respect of the property in question were never produced before the Grama Panchayat, when an application was made for regularising the constructions already made.

¶50

The 7^th respondent and also the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham would submit that the construction seen in Ext.P3 photographs are not new constructions. It is only reconstruction of the shop rooms, which were in existence.

¶51

The learned Standing Counsel Karthikapally Grama

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶54

Panchayat, on instructions from the 6^th respondent Secretary, would submit that the construction of shop rooms in Ext.P3 photographs is a new construction, after reclaiming a pond.

¶55

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board would point out the pendency of W.P.(C) No.24943 of 2023 by additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham, in respect of the very same construction, which is pending before the learned Single Judge. In the said writ petition, the Travancore Devaswom Board got itself impleaded as the additional 4^th respondent.

¶56

The 7^th respondent and also the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent seek time to file counter affidavits.

¶57

Three weeks’ time granted.

¶58

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to direct the 6^th respondent Secretary of Karthikappally Grama Panchayat to keep in abeyance further proceedings based on the application made by the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham for regularisation of the construction in respect of the shop rooms in question, for a period of one month. Status quo as on today in respect of those shop rooms shall be maintained.

¶59

The learned Standing Counsel for Karthikappally Grama Panchayat shall make available for the perusal of this Court the entire files relating to the application made by the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham for regularising the construction of shop rooms in Ext.P3 photographs.

¶60

¶61

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner to serve a legible copy of Exts.P1 and P2 to the learned Senior Government Pleader today itself.”

¶63

The order dated 21.09.2023 was followed by the orders dated

¶64

30.09.2023, 13.11.2023, 08.12.2023 and 16.01.2024.

¶65

The 6^th respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.10.2023, producing therewith Exts.R6(a) to R6(y) documents. The additional 8^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 17.10.2023, producing therewith Exts.R8(a) to R8(p) documents. The 7^th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 06.10.2023, producing therewith Exts.R7(a) to R7(h) documents.

¶66

The petitioner has filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 seeking an order to accept Ext.P5 photographs showing the measurement of the property; Ext.P6 copy of the complaint dated 28.09.2023 of the Secretary, Temple Advisory Committee to the Station House Officer, Thrikunnapuzha; and Ext.P6(a) copy of the receipt dated 09.10.2023 as additional documents. In that interlocutory application, an objection dated 07.11.2023 has been filed by the additional 8^th respondent, producing therewith Ext.R8(q) police complaint dated 19.10.2023 made by that respondent.

¶67

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent State

¶68

¶69

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶70

and additional respondents 9 to 11, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 5, the learned Standing Counsel for Karthikapplly Grama Panchayat for the 6^th respondent, the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent and also the learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent.

¶71

The issue raised in this writ petition centers around the disputed property, which is comprised in Re-survey No.288/3 (Old Survey Nos.3766/1, 3766/2, 3755 A, B, C and 3756 A, B) of Karthikappally Village. According to the petitioner, the land in the aforesaid survey numbers and also in the survey numbers referred to in paragraph 3 of the writ petition, covered by Ext.P1 settlement register is Devaswom land of Valiyakulangara Devaswom. On the other hand, relying on the documents placed on record along with the counter affidavit, the additional 8^th respondent would contend that the disputed property measuring 39.7 Ares, which is presently in Re-survey No.288/2 of Karthikappally Village, is owned and possessed by Karthikappally Brahmana Samooham.

¶72

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 enacted by the State Legislature makes provision for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and

¶73

¶74

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶75

unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. As per the provisions under Section 3 of the Act, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms shall vest in the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶76

As per Section 15A of the Act, it shall be the duty of

¶77

the Board to perform the following functions, namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites and ceremonies according to the 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. Section 31 of the Act deals with management of Devaswoms. A s per Section 31 of the Act, 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 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.

¶78

'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God

¶79

¶80

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶81

in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536] .

¶82

In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom

¶83

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 ‘fence 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.

¶84

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair

¶85

[2013 (3) KLT 132] a Division Bench of this Court noticed that in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [(2007) 7 SCC 482] the Apex Court

¶86

¶87

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶88

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 parens 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.

¶89

In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others

¶90

[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

¶91

patriae ’ jurisdiction in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board [(2007) 7 SCC 482] . The said decision was referred to and relied on by a Division Bench of this Court in Travancore

¶92

Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] . In

¶93

¶94

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶95

the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has

¶96

been effected without the 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.

¶97

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 in 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, there is a duty cast upon the Court

¶98

¶99

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶100

to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected.

¶101

During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board is that though the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar conducted a preliminary inspection on 27.11.2023, the survey of the property could not be conducted for want of survey plan and other documents. Therefore, the 4^th respondent has already approached the additional 9^th respondent Tahsildar, who has informed that those records are not available with him and requested the 4^th respondent to approach the additional 10^th respondent District Survey Superintendent, Alappuzha.

¶102

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in case such a request from the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar is received, the additional 10^th respondent District Survey Superintendent shall consider the same and furnish necessary records to the 4^th respondent. If such records are not available with the 10^th respondent District Survey Superintendent, it has to be obtained from the State Archives through the additional 11^th respondent Director of Archives.

¶103

The learned Senior Counsel for the additional 8^th respondent would point out that the survey records of old Survey

¶104

¶105

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶106

No.3755 A, B, C are placed on record along with the counter affidavit filed by that respondent as Ext.R8(b), that of Survey No.3756 as Ext.R8(c) and that of Re-survey No.288 as Ext.R8(e).

¶107

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, directing the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy Unit), Travancore Devaswom Board to finalise the survey of the disputed land, with reference to the survey records, including old survey records, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner, the 7^th respondent and also the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana Samooham. In case the survey records of the disputed land are not available with the additional 10^th respondent District Survey Superintendent, the same shall be obtained from the State Archives through the additional 11^th respondent Director of Archives, based on the request to be made by the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar, through the additional 10^th respondent District Survey Superintendent. The learned Senior Government Pleader shall ensure that the survey records sought for are furnished to the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar at the earliest, in order to

¶108

¶109

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶110

ensure that the survey of the disputed land is completed within the time frame fixed in this judgment. Till such exercise is undertaken and completed by the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar, the interim order granted by this Court in paragraph 11 of the order dated 21.09.2023, which is extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 3, including the order of status quo as on that date in respect of the shop rooms under construction, shall be maintained.

¶111

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the rival contentions regarding the title and ownership of the disputed property. It is for the petitioner, the 7^th respondent and also the additional 8^th respondent Brahmana

¶112

Samooham to place relevant materials before the 4^th respondent Special Tahsildar, at the time of survey.

¶113

Sd/-

¶114

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE

AV/5/2

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶120

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30586/2023

¶121

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶122

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF
'TIRUVITHAMCODE STATE
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL04040702568/2023 ALONG WITH THE ENTRIES
IN THE SINGLE DATA
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ILLEGALLY CONSTRUCTED
BUILDING
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MEASUREMENT
OF THE PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF SECRETARY, TEMPLE
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO SHO, THRIKUNNAPUZHA
DATED 28/09/2023
EXHIBIT P6(a) COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 09/10/2023
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-R6 (A) COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19/07/2023
EXHIBIT-R6 (B) COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 05/08/2017
EXHIBIT-R6 (C) COPY OF LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE BEARING
NO.A3-4082/2021/KDIS DATED 07/07/2021
EXHIBIT-R6 (D) COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 23/06/2021
EXHIBIT-R6 (E) COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED
05/01/2021
EXHIBIT-R6 (F) COPY OF LETTER NO.C4-172/22 DATED 24/01/2022
EXHIBIT-R6 (G) COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION DATED 17/05/2023

¶123

¶124

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶125

`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(H)`	`COPY OF RECEIPT NO. KL04040702568/2023 IN TP` `NO.3959`
`EXHIBIT-R (`	`I)`	`COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH DATED 10/04/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(J)`	`COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.77825073` `DATED 16/05/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(K)`	`COPY OF A-REGISTER-SINGLE DATA DATED` `12/05/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R (`	`L)`	`COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED` `22/01/2021`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(M)`	`COPY OF LETTER` `NO.400438/BRMCO2/GPO/2023/1984/(1) DATED` `25/05/2023`
`EXHIBIT- R6`	`(N)`	`COPY OF LETTER DATED 30/05/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(O)`	`COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/05/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(P)`	`COPY OF LEGAL OPINION DATE 19/06/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(Q)`	`COPY OF LETTER` `NO.400438/BRMCO2/GPO/2023/1984/(3) DATED` `13/07/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(R)`	`COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19/07/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(S)`	`COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 03/08/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(T)`	`COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/08/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(U)`	`COPY OF LETTER DATED 11/08/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(V)`	`COPY OF LETTER DATED 10/08/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(W)`	`COPY OF LETTER NO.151/23 DATED 08/09/2023`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(X)`	`COPY OF ASSET REGISTER`
`EXHIBIT-R6`	`(Y)`	`COPY OF ROAD MAINTENANCE REGISTER`

¶126

¶127

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶128

`EXHIBIT R8(A)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE` `SETTLEMENT REGISTER CERTIFIED BY THE` `ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT`
`EXHIBIT R8(B)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH OF SY. NO.` `3755 OF KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R8(C)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH OF SY. NO.` `3756, SITUATED TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF SY NO.` `3755 OF KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R8(D)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE BTR DETAILS PUBLISHED BY` `THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN THE WEBSITE`
`EXHIBIT R8(E)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY SKETCH OF FIELD` `NO. 288 OF KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R8(F)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY A RETD.` `SURVEYOR V.M. CHELLAPPAN`
`EXHIBIT R8(G)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT, DATED` `26.7.1994, ISSUED TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT BY` `THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KARTHIKAPALLY FOR HAVING` `PAID TAX FOR 39.70 ARES IN RS NO. 288/2 OF` `KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R8(H)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BEFORE` `THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT` `DATED 18.9.2023`
`EXHIBIT R8(I)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAMOOHA` `MADOM SITUATED IN THE MIDDLE OF RS NO. 288/2` `OF KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R8(J)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE INTERIOR` `OF THE SAMOOHA MADOM`
`EXHIBIT R8(K)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE THEN` `COMMITTEE OF THE SAMOHAM OF THE DATE 25TH` `VRISCHIKAM 1125`
`EXHIBIT R8(L)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPENDITURE DETAILS GIVEN BY` `SUB-GROUP OFFICER HARIPAD FOR ME 1194` `VRISHCHIKAM 2`
`EXHIBIT R8(M)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27-9-2023`

¶129

¶130

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶131

`EXHIBIT R8(N)`	`FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT` `TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOS OF THE LAST` `NAVARATHRI CELEBRATIONS HELD ON OCTOBER 3RD,` `2023`
`EXHIBIT R8(0)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO INITIALLY TAKEN AND` `PRODUCED BEFORE THE AGRICULTURE OFFICE,` `KARTHIKAPALLY`
`EXHIBIT R8(P)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE NEW COCONUT` `SAPLING`
`EXHIBIT R7(A)`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE` `NAMES ETC OF GRANT IN AID DEVASWOMS IN` `KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT R7(B)`	`RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LIST OF THE TEMPLES,` `ALONG WITH DEVASWOM PROCLAMATION DATED 12TH` `APRIL 1922`
`EXHIBIT R7(C)`	`THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SETTLEMENT` `REGISTER OF THE YEAR 1905, ISSUED BY THE` `SUPDT. CENTRAL ARCHIVES, TRIVANDRUM`
`EXHIBIT R7(D)`	`THE SKETCH OF THE TEMPLE PROPERTY`
`EXHIBIT R7(E)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE` `DATED 2/4/1125 ME EVIDENCING SUCH NOMINATION`
`EXHIBIT R7(F)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 8/2/2017`
`EXHIBIT R7(G)`	`A PHOTO OF 'THALIYOA' DOCUMENTS`
`EXHIBIT R7(H)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE, DATED` `9/5/2023, ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KERALA` `BRAHMANA SABHA`
`EXHIBIT R8(Q)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POLICE COMPLAINT DATED` `19.10.2023`
`EXHIBIT R8(R)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE` `DEMOLISHED COMPOUND WALL IN SY NO 3756 OF` `KARTHIKAPALLY VILLAGE`

¶132

¶133

W.P.(C)No.30586 of 2023

¶134

EXHIBIT R 8(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 6-12-2023
PREFERRED BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
TRIKKUNAPUZHA POLICE STATION

Joythish. S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joythish. S 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

M.a.Ansar Vs Shaji Mathai

Cheriya Komath Rajeevan Vs K.a.Chandran

K.a.Chandran Vs Cheriyakomath Rajeevan

Akhilesh Vs Mr. Abdul Kader

Ozhur Eranallur Sree Subrahmania Swamy Temple Non Hereditary Trustee Board Vs the District Collector

Ponnambath Manoj Vs Thoduvayal Edakozhi Puthussery Summayya