Partly allowed

Arun K.S. v. the Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC4 Mar 2024WP(C)/324/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner denied Karayma rights over temple land by a Cochin Devaswom Board order, allegedly due to pending property litigation with his family. The court held such disputes could not justify denial, set aside the proceedings, and directed a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P16 set aside; first respondent directed to take fresh decision after affording petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Arun K.S. Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 324 OF 2015

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

ARUN K.S.
S/O.SRI K K SANKARANKUTTY WARIER,
KARIKKODE WARIAM,
KARIKODE,
MKULANTHURUTHY (P O),
ERNAKULAM DIST
BY ADV SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DEVASWOM BUILDINGS, EAST ROUND, THRISSUR-680001, REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶9

2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRIPUNITHURA-682306

¶10

3 JUNIOR DEVASWOM OFFICER KUREEKKAD DEVASWOM, KUREEKKADU DEVASWOM, SREE KAREEKKODE MAHAVISHNU TEMPLE, KUREEKKKODE-682305 BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.SUMEESH K.S., SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.324 of 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P16 proceedings of the Special Devaswom Commissioner denying Karayma rights to the petitioner on account of the fact that there are certain litigations pending between the Cochin Devaswom Board and the family of the petitioner regarding certain land. Without going into the details of the said dispute, it may be stated that the petitioner’s paternal grandmother had filed O.S.No.399 of 1998 before the Subordinate Judges Court, Ernakulam claiming right, title and interest over certain properties in her possession. It appears that a compromise decree was issued in the said suit, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court. It is stated that the right of the family of the petitioner to enjoy certain lands is now subject matter of proceedings before this Court as DBP No.116/2012.

¶17

It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Karayma rights

¶18

WP(C)No.324 of 2015

¶19

¶20

claimed by the petitioner cannot be denied on the ground that there is civil litigation between the Cochin Devaswom Board and the family of the petitioner regarding certain property.

¶21

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that there were also certain allegations against the petitioner’s paternal aunt and this was also a reason to suspend the Karayma rights through Ext.P16 order. It is, however, not disputed that the fact that there were certain litigations between the Cochin Devaswom Board and the family of the petitioner was also taken into account for the purposes of denying Karayama rights in Ext.P16.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Devaswom Board, I am of the view that the fact that there are civil litigations or disputes relating to property between the Devaswom Board and the family of the petitioner cannot be a reason to deny the Karayma rights of the family of the petitioner. The allegation of

¶23

WP(C)No.324 of 2015

¶24

¶25

misappropriation etc. is against the paternal aunt of the petitioner to whom the Karayma rights had been temporarily transferred by Ext.P7 order. Prima facie, the

¶26

same also cannot be a ground to deny Karayma rights to the petitioner.

¶27

In the light of the above finding, Ext.P16 will stand set aside with a direction to the first respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and keeping in mind the observations in this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

Sd/- GOPINATH P., JUDGE

rkj

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 324/2015

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

`EXT.P1:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `DTD 15/12/2007`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION`
`EXT.P2:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `FROM OTHER MEMBERS`	`OF THE CONSENT LETTERS` `OF THE PETITIONER`
`EXT.P3:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `SMT RAJESWARI DTD`	`OF THE REPRESENTATIN OF` `NIL`
`EXT.P4:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `FROM THE GRANDMOT` `DTD 30/7/2012`	`OF THE CONSENT LETTERS` `HER OF THE PETITIONER`
`EXT.P5:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `FROM THE OTHER ME` `30/7/2012`	`OF THE CONSENT LETTERS` `MBERS OF THE FAMILY DTD`
`EXT.P6:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `THE IST RESPONDENT` `26/12/2012`	`OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF` `VIDE M 4.9073/2012 DTD`
`EXT.P7:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `THE IST RESPONDENT` `13/3/2013`	`OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF` `VIDE M.4.9073/2012 DTD`
`EXT.P8:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `THE IST RESPONDENT` `31/5/2013`	`OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF` `VIDE M 4.9073/2012 DTD`
`EXT.P9:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `DTD 6/6/2013 SUBMI` `THE BOARD`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION` `TED BY SMT RAJESWARI TO`
`EXT.P10:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `DTD 19/7/2013 SUB` `WARASSIAR`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION` `MITTED BY SMT MADHAVI`
`EXT.P11:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `HON'BLE HIGH COUR` `12986/2014`	`OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE` `T DTD 28/5/2014 IN WPC`
`EXT.P12:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCO` `MEMORANDUM OF TH` `M4/9073/12 DTD 5/7`	`PY OF THE OFFICIAL` `E IST RESPONDENT NO.` `/2014`
`EXT.P13:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`	`OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF` `DTD 9/7/2014`
`EXT.P14:-`	`A TRUE PHOTOCOPY` `WITH A LETTER FRO`	`OF THE AFFIDAVIT ALONG` `M THE ELDEST MEMBER OF`
	`THE FAMILY SUB` `RESPONDENT`	`MITTED TO THE 2ND`

¶35

¶36

¶37

EXT.P15:-A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
20831/2014 DTD 7/10/2014
EXT.P16:-A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO
M.49073/2012 DTD 13/11/2014

Arun K.S. v. the Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun K.S. v. the Cochin 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

Usha K.C., Vs the Director General of Police

Peshumkara Padasekhara Nellulpadhana Samithy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Shanmughan Vs Superintendent of Police, Thrissur

Cyril v.Joseph Vs Union of India

Yacoob Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen M.a, Vs National Insurance Company Limited