Rajendran.K.B Vs State of Kerala

¶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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 4288 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 RAJENDRAN K.B AGED 60 YEARS S/O.BAVA KALATHUMPADI, KOTTUVALLI KAITHARAM.P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683519

¶9

2 SAJEEV K.G AGED 56 YEARS

¶10

S/O.GOPALAN, KOCHANIKODATH HOUSE, VALLUVALLI,
KOONAMAVU.P.O. PARAVOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 683518

¶11

3 UNNIKRISHNAN P.P S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN, SREELAKAM, KOTTUALLY, KAITHARAM (P.O.), NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683519

¶12

4 P.P.VENUGOPAL S/O RAMAN MENON, PATTANATHUKATTIL, PATTANAM, VADAKKEKARA, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683519

¶13

BY ADVS.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR
R.KRISHNA RAJ
E.S.SONI
RESMI A.
R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE(DEVASWOM), KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶16

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030

¶17

2

¶18

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶19

3 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶20

4 SECRETARY KOONAMMAVU ST. PHILOMENA'S SADHUJANA SANGAM -145, KOONAMMAVU P.O., NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683518

¶21

*ADDL.R5 THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY), DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, TRANVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. (ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/08/2023 IN IA 2/23 IN WP(C))

¶22

#ADDL.R6 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, 5^TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM – 682 030

¶23

#ADDL.R7 THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, DIRECTORATE OF STATE ARCHIVES, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

¶24

#(ADDL.R6 & R7 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 04/03/2024 IN WP(C))

¶25

R1, R2 & ADDL.R6 & 7 BY SRI.S.RAJMOHAN, SR.GOVT.
 PLEADER
R3& ADDL.R5 BY SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR G., SC, TDB
R4 BY SRI.N.ANAND

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).15507/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3

¶28

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH

¶34

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 15507 OF 2023

¶35

PETITIONER:

¶36

KOONAMAVU ST.PHILOMINA'S SADHU JANA SANGHOM NO. 145
VALLUVALLY, KOONAMAVU P.O., NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, PIN –
683518, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶37

BY ADVS.N.ANAND

¶38

RAJESH O.N.

¶39

RESPONDENTS:

¶40

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN –
695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶41

2 THE COMMISSIONER THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003

¶42

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KANNANKULANGARA LINK ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513

¶43

4 RAJENDRAN S/O BAVA KALATHUPADICKAL, KOTTUVALLY, CHEMMAYAM, KOONAMMAVU, PIN - 683518

¶44

*ADDL.R5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND CONSERVANCY), DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

¶45

*ADDL.R6 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, 5^TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030

¶46

4

¶47

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶48

*ADDL.R7 THE DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, DIRECTORATE OF STATE
ARCHIVES, NALANDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003

¶49

*(ADDL.R5 TO R7 ARE SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 04/03/2024 IN WPC)

¶50

R1 TO R3 & ADDL.R5 BY G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TDB
R4 BY BY ADVS.KRISHNA RAJ
 E.S.SONI(K/304/2012)
 KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR(K/001617/2000)
 R.PRATHEESH (ARANMULA)(K/97/2013)
ADDL.R6 & R7 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.S.RAJMOHAN

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).4288/2023, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

5

¶53

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶56

The issue raised in these writ petitions centers around the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, which is a temple under the management of the Travancore Devaswom Board.

¶57

W.P.(C)No.4288 of 2023:- The petitioners, who are devotees of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action in removing the encroachment of the 4^th respondent and others into the Devaswom land having an extent of 12.19 Acres situated in Survey Nos.225/6, 225/7, 225/8, 225/9, 225/10B, 290/16, 290/17, 291/1, 291/1C, 291/2B, 291/3C, 291/4B, 291/5A, 294/1, 299/10, 299/11, 299/16A, 299/16B, 299/18B, 299/18C, 299/18D, 299/19B, 299/20, 317/10A, 317/10B, 317/11A, 317/11B, 317/12A, 317/12B and 318/4 of Kottuvalli Village, belonging to the minor deity of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy of Peruvaram Devaswom, under the Travancore Devaswom Board, and protect the same. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to remove the encroachment of

¶58

6

¶59

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶60

the 4^th respondent by evicting him from the property having an extent of 3.11 Acres situated in Survey No.218/4 and 225/6 of Kottuvally Village and protect the property of the minor deity of Konnamkulangara Devaswom by demolishing the compound wall constructed on the western and northern side of the property so as to enable the ritual of Bhagavathy Varavelppu of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple.

¶61

2.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple is having an extent of 12.19 Acres. Now the temple is in possession of only 1.40 Acres, as a result of the encroachments made by the 4^th respondent and others. Despite the order of the Apex Court dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini

¶62

Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] no steps have been taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board and its officials to recover the property of the deity, by evicting the encroachers.

¶63

2.2. On 14.02.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the 3^rd respondent.

¶64

This Court issued notice on admission to the 4^th respondent by speed post, returnable within four weeks. The learned Senior

¶65

7

¶66

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶67

Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for

¶68

Travancore Devaswom Board were directed to get instructions.

¶69

2.3. On 16.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, while listing the matter to 22.05.2023, this Court directed that status quo as on that date, in respect of the compound wall in question, shall be maintained till then. By the order dated 22.05.2023, the petitioners were directed to file an application to implead the concerned Special Tahsildar. Thereafter, by the order dated 17.08.2023, the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board was impleaded as the additional 5^th respondent.

¶70

2.4. The 4^th respondent, the alleged encroacher, has filed counter affidavit dated 28.07.2023, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(j) documents. The 3^rd respondent Travancore Devaswom Board has also filed a counter affidavit dated 15.12.2023.

¶71

W.P.(C)No.15507 of 2023:- This writ petition is one

¶72

filed by the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.4288 of 2023, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P13 notice dated 27.04.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner, whereby the petitioner was directed to demolish the compound wall so as to conduct the customary practice in connection with the

¶73

8

¶74

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶75

‘Theyyat Festival’ of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, which was scheduled to be conducted from 12.05.2023 to 14.05.2023. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 3^rd respondent Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue orders in the nature of Ext.P13.

¶76

3.1. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner society purchased the land in question in the year 1969. Ext.P2 is the tax receipt and Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate of that property. Since the 4^th respondent, namely, Rajendran, obstructed the petitioner's efforts to level the land, the petitioner obtained Ext.P6 building permit to construct a compound wall. However, the 4^th respondent obstructed the construction. Hence, the petitioner obtained Ext.P7 injunction order against the 4^th respondent from the Munsiff Court, North Paravur. Even thereafter, the 4^th respondent continued obstruction and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29140 of 2022 seeking police protection, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dated 28.11.2022. On the strength of Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner completed the construction of the compound wall. It is thereafter that the 4^th respondent, along with others, filed W.P.(C)No.4288 of 2023 before this Court alleging encroachment of Devaswom land by

¶77

9

¶78

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶79

the petitioner.

¶80

3.2. On 09.05.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board entered appearance for respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to the 4^th respondent by special messenger. By the order dated 09.05.2023, while listing the matter to 12.05.2023, this Court granted an interim order to defer all proceedings pursuant to Ext.P13 till then. By the order dated 16.05.2023, this Court directed to maintain status quo as on that date, in respect of the compound wall in question, till the next posting date. The said interim order, which was extended from time to time, is still in force.

¶81

3.3. The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.05.2023, producing therewith Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) documents. The petitioner has filed reply affidavit dated 28.07.2023, to the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 have also filed a counter affidavit dated 24.01.2024, producing therewith Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) documents.

¶82

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the respective writ petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader

¶83

10

¶84

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶85

for the State and official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for the Board and its officials and also the learned counsel for the party respondent.

¶86

'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] .

¶87

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 ‘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

¶88

11

¶89

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶90

religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.

¶91

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 1998) 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

¶92

12

¶93

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶94

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 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

¶95

13

¶96

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶97

angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

¶98

In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair

¶99

[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 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.

¶100

In Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] the Division

¶101

Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai v. State of

¶102

Kerala [1970 KLT 838] , wherein a Full Bench of this Court

¶103

14

¶104

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶105

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

¶106

Bench held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to

¶107

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

¶108

15

¶109

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶110

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 contentions of the petitioner were to prevail, it would mean that because the Government 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 nonfeasance of a trustee.

¶111

In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others

¶112

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

¶113

the legal position has been made clear by the Apex Court as to

¶114

16

¶115

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶116

the role to be played by the High Court in exercising the ‘ parens patriae ’ jurisdiction in Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom

¶117

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 assignment/conveyance has 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.

¶118

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

¶119

17

¶120

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶121

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

¶122

In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 789 : 2018 SCC 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 India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is a 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 directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed

¶123

18

¶124

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶125

that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or assign 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 become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation. Paragraphs 10, 11 and 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] read thus;

¶126

“10. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilization of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all shrines throughout India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that 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.

¶127

Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a Court also to issue directions for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, we direct that if any

¶128

19

¶129

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶130

devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout 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 the above aspects and if necessary, send a report to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as become necessary, having regard to the individual fact situation.

¶131

xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶132

We may sum up our directions in today's orders, in addition to the orders dated 08.06.2018, as follows;

¶133

i) Report of the District Judge dated 26.6.2018 is accepted in principle and action to be taken by the temple administration.

¶134

ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail.

¶135

iii) The State Government may submit report of the Committee constituted by it on or before 31.8.2018.

¶136

iv) The Central Government may constitute its Committee, as already directed, within two weeks from today and place its interim report on record of this Court on or before 31.8.2018. v) Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be placed on the websites of the temple management, Ministry of Culture and website of the Supreme Court for two weeks.

¶137

vi) The directions in the order dated 8.6.2018 may be complied with by all concerned and

¶138

20

¶139

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶140

noncompliance thereof may be reported to this Court for appropriate action if necessary.

¶141

vii) The temple management may consider, subject to regulatory measures, with regard to dress code, giving of an appropriate declaration or compliance with other directions, permitting every visitor irrespective of his faith, to offer respects and to make offerings to the deity. viii) We have noted that Hinduism does not eliminate any other belief and is eternal faith and wisdom and inspiration of centuries, as noted in earlier judgments of this Court.

¶142

ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation. x) Learned amicus is at liberty to engage with all stakeholders and to give suggestions for bringing about improvements and also to give a report to this Court. However, this will not stand in the way of the Committee of the State Government, Committee of the Central

¶143

21

¶144

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶145

Government or any District Judge considering matters in terms of above directions.”

¶146

(underline supplied)

¶147

In Ganapathy Namboothiri v. State of Kerala

¶148

[2024 (1) KLT 599 : 2024 (2) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J] was a party, held that the directions issued by the Apex Court in clauses (i) to (viii) and (x) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018

¶149

SCC OnLine SC 667] are in respect of the issue of public importance highlighted in that writ petition relating to the difficulties faced by the visitors to Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri

¶150

and their harassment or exploitation by the Sevaks of the temple. Before the Apex Court, it was pointed out that the environment of the surroundings is not hygienic, as it ought to be, and there are encroachments. There are deficiencies in the management of the shrine and the rituals are commercialised. See: Para 1 of the order dated 08.06.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 [2018 SCC OnLine SC 602] . It is in that context that the Apex Court issued a general direction in clause (ix) of para 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] for redressal of

¶151

the difficulties faced by the devotees of all shrines throughout

¶152

22

¶153

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶154

India, irrespective of religion practised in such shrines, on account of harassment or exploitation by those in management, unhygienic surroundings, encroachments, deficiencies in management, etc. The general direction contained in clause (ix) of para 20 is to the effect that difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings and protection of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

¶155

In Ganapathy Namboothiri [2024 (2) KHC 1] the

¶156

Division Bench held that t he petition that can be moved by a devotee in terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the aforesaid order dated 05.07.2018 - Mrinalini Padhi [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] of the Apex Court is not one invoking the provisions under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since that provision of the Code, which deals

¶157

23

¶158

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶159

with public charities, can be invoked only in the manner provided in sub-section (1) of Section 92, to obtain a decree of any of the reliefs set out in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of Section 92, in the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. In terms of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order dated 05.07.2018 of the Apex Court, which is one issued for redressal of the difficulties faced by the devotees on account of deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilisation of offerings or protection of assets of shrines, a devotee can approach the District Judge having jurisdiction, with a petition pointing out the difficulties faced by him on account of any such matters, in which event the District Judge may examine such matters by himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the High Court concerned, for consideration of that report in the judicial side, for issuing any direction as may be considered necessary, having regard to individual fact situation.

¶160

In Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and

¶161

others [2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541] a Division

¶162

24

¶163

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶164

Bench of this Court, in which one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a party, noticed that in view of the provisions under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, nothing in Chapter II (i.e., provisions regarding tenancies) shall apply to leases or tenancies of land referred to in clauses (i) to (xii) of the said sub-section. As per clause (x) of sub-section (1) of Section 3, nothing in Chapter II shall apply to tenancies in respect of sites, tanks and premises of any temple, mosque or church (including sites belonging to a temple, mosque or church on which religious ceremonies are conducted) and sites of office buildings and other buildings attached to such temple, mosque

¶165

or church, created by the owner, trustee or manager of such temple, mosque or church. In view of the provisions under subsection (1) of Section 74, after the commencement of the Act, no tenancy shall be created in respect of any land. As per sub- section (2) of Section 74, any tenancy created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be invalid. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 57, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application under Section 54, the Land Tribunal shall give notice to the landowner, the intermediaries and all other persons interested in the holding, to

¶166

prefer claims or objections with regard to the application. As per

¶167

25

¶168

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶169

sub-section (2) of Section 57, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under subsection (1) and after making due enquiries, pass orders - (i) on the application, if any, pending before it from the landowner or intermediary for resumption in accordance with the provisions of Section 22; and (ii) on the application for purchase under Section 54. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72, on a date to be notified by the Government in this behalf in the Gazette, all right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in respect of holdings held by cultivating tenants (including holders of kudiyiruppus and holders of karaimas) entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 and in respect of which certificates of purchase under sub-section (2) of Section 59 have not been issued, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, vest in the Government free from all encumbrances created by the landowners and intermediaries and subsisting thereon on the said date. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 72B, the cultivating tenant of any holding or part of a holding, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government under Section 72, shall be entitled to assignment of such right, title and

¶170

26

¶171

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶172

interest. As per clause (a) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, no cultivating tenant shall be entitled to assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of any holding or part of a holding under this section if he, or if he is a member of a family, such family, owns an extent of land not less than the ceiling area. As per clause (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 72B, where the cultivating tenant or, if he is a member of a family, such family, does not own any land or owns an extent of land which is less than the ceiling area, he shall be entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of only such extent of land as will, together with the

¶173

land, if any, owned by him or his family, as the case may be, be

¶174

equal to the ceiling area. In view of the provisions under sub- section (1) of Section 72BB, any landowner or intermediary whose right, title and interest in respect of any holding have vested in the Government may apply to the Land Tribunal for the assignment of such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenant and for the payment of the compensation due to him under Section 72A. As per Section 72C, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3) of Section 72B or Section 72BB, the Land Tribunal may, subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in this behalf, at any time after the

¶175

27

¶176

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶177

vesting of the right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in the Government under Section 72, assign such right, title and interest to the cultivating tenants entitled thereto, and the cultivating tenants shall be bound to accept such assignment. In view of the provisions under Section 72F, the Land Tribunal has to issue notices and determine the compensation and purchase price. As per sub-section (1) of Section 72F, as soon as may be after the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding or part of a holding have vested in the Government under Section 72, or, where an application under Section 72B or Section 72BB has been received by the Land Tribunal, as soon as may be after the receipt of such application, the Land Tribunal shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in the prescribed form in such manner as may be prescribed, calling upon the landowner, the intermediaries, if any and cultivating tenant; and all other persons interested in the land, the right, title and interest in respect of which have vested in the Government, to prefer claims and objections, if any, within such time as may be specified in the notice and to appear before it on the date specified in the notice with all relevant records to prove their respective claims or in support of their objections. As per

¶178

28

¶179

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶180

the mandate of sub-section (5) of Section 72F, the land Tribunal shall, after considering the claims and objections received in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) and the advice received from the village committee or village committees before the date specified therefor and hearing any person appearing in pursuance of the notice issued under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and after making due enquiries, pass an order specifying the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of sub-section (5). As per sub-section (1) of Section 72K, as soon as may be after the determination of the purchase price under Section 72F or the passing of an order under sub-section (3) of Section 72MM the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant, and thereupon the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of the holding or part thereof to which the certificate relates, shall vest in the cultivating tenant free from all encumbrances created by the landowner or the intermediaries if any.

¶181

In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] the Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, found that the said Act is a complete code by itself as far as the right of cultivating tenant to

¶182

29

¶183

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶184

fixity of tenure in respect of his holding, the right of the cultivating tenant to get assignment of the right, title and interest in respect of his holdings, the determination by the Land Tribunal the compensation and purchase price and the issuance of purchase certificate to the cultivating tenant. The provisions under the said Act deal with the application for the purchase of the landlord's right by the cultivating tenant and the procedure for consideration of the application by the Land Tribunal, with notice to the landowner, the intermediaries, if any, the cultivating tenant and all persons interested in the land, calling upon them to prefer claims and objections, if any, and after making due enquiries. Thereafter, the Land Tribunal shall issue a certificate of purchase to the cultivating tenant. In view of the provisions under the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, where the Land Tribunal is of the opinion that an application for purchase certificate has to be allowed, it shall, before it passes an order under Section 57, prepare preliminary findings on the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (m) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 55. The Land Tribunal shall issue a notice of its findings to the landowner, every intermediary, etc., calling upon them to prefer in writings claims for the purchase price or part thereof. On receipt of the objections or claims, if any, the Land Tribunal shall

¶185

30

¶186

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶187

consider the same and decide the claims after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce such evidence as may be necessary and then proceed to pass an order under Section 57 of the Act. In such an order passed by the Land Tribunal on an application filed under Section 54 of the Act by the cultivating tenant for purchase of landlord's right, the Land Tribunal has to record its finding that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his holding. The tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions. The tenancy is not one created in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. It is well settled that, when the statute requires to do certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or modes of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is based on a legal maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius' meaning thereby that, if the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, and following other course is not permissible.

¶188

31

¶189

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶190

The said proposition of law about limitation of the exercise of statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M.R. in the

¶191

case of Taylor v. Taylor [(1876) 1 Ch.D. 426] , wherein it was laid down that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The Privy Council applied the said principle in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253] . In Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All ER

¶192

1148) Lord Denning, M.R. observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 ICR 120) it was observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision- taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. By the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, this Court restrained all Land Tribunals in the State from proceedings with any Original Application filed before the appointed date or S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate in respect of Devaswom lands of Temples under the control/ management of Malabar Devaswom Board, Travancore Devaswom Board and also the Cochin Devaswom Board, without

¶193

32

¶194

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶195

the respective Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, in

¶196

the party array. In the said order, it was made clear that a copy of the Original Application or the report and other materials based on which S.M.Proceedings are initiated shall be enclosed along with the notice issued to the concerned Devaswom Board, through the concerned Village Officer. The Land Tribunals were directed to afford a reasonable opportunity to the concerned Devaswom Board to raise its contentions, both legal and factual. It was made clear that the decision taken by the Land Tribunals shall be one reflecting the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides.

¶197

17. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] , in

¶198

continuation of the order dated 15.12.2021 in W.P.(C)No.8851 of 2020, it was ordered that, in the orders passed by the Land Tribunals in the State in Original Applications/S.M.Proceedings for purchase certificate, the Land Tribunal has to record its findings that the applicant is a cultivating tenant, as defined under clause (8) of Section 2 of the Act, who is entitled to fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Act, in respect of his holding; that the tenancy is not in respect of land falling under clauses (i) to (xii) of Section 3 of the Act, which deals with exemptions; and that the tenancy is not one created in contravention of the

¶199

33

¶200

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶201

provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act, i.e., it is not a tenancy created after the commencement of the Act. In respect of temples which are controlled institutions under Malabar Devaswom Board, the Land Tribunals shall take note of the provisions under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, as per which any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease of any immovable property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution.

¶202

The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, on instructions, would submit that the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) has already conducted a preliminary enquiry on 16.01.2024, who has directed the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15507 of 2023 and others, who have encroached the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, to produce their title deed. After obtaining those documents, the Special Tahsildar shall conduct a survey to identify and demarcate the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple.

¶203

The learned counsel for the petitioner in

¶204

34

¶205

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶206

W.P.(C)No.4288 of 2023 and also the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.15507 of 2023 would submit that such survey may be with notice to the petitioners.

¶207

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 5^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board to finalise the survey and identification of the boundaries of the Devaswom land of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple, taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, 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, after affording the petitioners in these writ petitions and other affected parties an opportunity to substantiate their claims. The survey of the land shall be with notice to the affected parties. The order of status quo granted in these writ petitions shall continue till then. The religious customary practices in connection with the annual festival of Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy Temple shall be conducted without any obstruction whatsoever.

¶208

In case the survey records of the disputed land are not available with the additional 6^th respondent District Survey Superintendent, the same shall be obtained from the State Archives, through the additional 7^th respondent Director of

¶209

35

¶210

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶211

Archives, based on the request to be made by the additional 5^th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), through the District Survey Superintendent.

¶212

The Travancore Devaswom Board shall file an action taken report before the learned Ombudsman within a period of three months. It would be open to the learned Ombudsman to file reports before this Court, in case further directions of this Court are necessary in the matter.

¶213

Registry to communicate a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petitions, to the learned Ombudsman, for information and necessary action.

¶214

Sd/-

¶215

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE

AV/6/3

36

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶221

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4288/2023

¶222

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶223

`Exhibit P-1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED` `NIL`
`Exhibit P-2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE` `RESIDENCE OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE SHO` `NORTH PARAVUR DATED 16.01.2023`
`Exhibit P-3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME` `COURT` `IN` `W.P.(C)` `NO.649/2018` `DATED` `05.07.2018`
`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit R4(a)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED` `DATED 25.02.1969 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE` `PETITIONER SOCIETY AND VENKITESHWARAAYYAN`
`Exhibit R4(b)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED` `11.05.2022 ISSUED BY KOTUVALLY VILLAGE` `OFFICE IN NO. KL07030609339/2022`
`Exhibit R4(c)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE` `DATED 24.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE KOTTUVALLY` `VILLAGE OFFICE IN NO. 65179600`
`Exhibit R4(d)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP PREPARED BY` `TALUK SURVEYOR NORTH PARAVOOR`
`Exhibit R4(e)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE` `DATED` `23.05.2022` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE` `REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA`
`Exhibit R4(f)`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `JUDGMENT` `DATED` `03.06.2003 IN WA NO. 2992/2002`
`Exhibit R4(g)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND` `BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE KOTTUVALLY` `GRAMA` `PANCHAYATH` `IN` `PERMIT` `NO.` `E3-` `BA(21485)/2022 DATED 29.06.2022`
`Exhibit R4(h)`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION` `DATED 30.07.2022 PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF`

¶224

37

¶225

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶226

COURT, NORTH PARAVOOR IN IA NO. 2/2022 IN
OS NO. 316/2022
Exhibit R4(i) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 0861/2022 DATED
30.07.2022 REGISTERED BY THE NORTH
PARAVOOR POLICE
Exhibit R4(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
28.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
WP(C) NO. 29140/2022

¶227

38

¶228

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶229

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15507/2023

¶230

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶231

`Exhibit-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY MAP PREPARED BY` `TALUK SURVEYOR, NORTH PARAVUR`
`Exhibit-P2`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `RECEIPT` `DATED` `11.05.2022 ISSUED BY KODUVALLY VILLAGE` `OFFICE`
`Exhibit-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE` `DATED` `24.05.2022` `ISSUED` `BY` `VILLAGE` `OFFICE, KOTTUVALLY`
`Exhibit-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE` `DATED` `23.05.2022` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE` `REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF` `KERALA`
`Exhibit-P5`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `JUDGMENT` `DATED` `03.06.2003 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT` `IN W.A. NO. 2992 OF 2003`
`Exhibit-P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND` `BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY KOTTUVALLY` `GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 29.06.2022 IN E3-` `BA (214845)/2022`
`Exhibit-P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2022` `PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH` `PARAVUR IN I.A. NO. 2 OF 2022 IN O.S.` `NO. 316 OF 2022`
`Exhibit-P8`	`TRUE COPY OF FIR NO. 0861 OF 2022` `REGISTERED` `BEFORE` `THE` `NORTH` `PARAVUR` `POLICE STATION`
`Exhibit-P9`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `JUDGMENT` `DATED` `28.11.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT` `IN W.P.(C) NO. 29140 OF 2022`
`Exhibit-P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS IN` `W.P.(C) NO. 4288 OF 2023 ON THE FILES OF` `THIS HON'BLE COURT`

¶232

39

¶233

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶234

Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2023
ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 4288 OF 2023
Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE STATUS OF W.P.(C)
NO. 4288 OF 2023 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE
COURT
Exhibit-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.04.2023
IN NO. 963/2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.
3
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED
DATED 25.02.1969 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER SOCIETY AND VENKITESHWARAAYYA
Exhibit P15 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TEMPLE GATE OF
KONNAMKULANGARA DEVI TEMPLE
Exhibit P16 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HIGH WALL AND THE LOW
WALL SURROUNDING THE TEMPLE AND THE
POND, AND SURROUNDING LAND
Exhibit P17 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHED WHERE THE TEMPLE
CONDUCTS THE THIYYATT
Exhibit P18 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WALL CONSTRUCTED BY
THE PETITIONER, OVERLOOKING THE HIGH-
WALL AND LOW-WALL IN EXT. P16

¶235

Exhibit P19 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WAY

¶236

Exhibit P20 PHOTOGRAPH OF RAJENDRAN COWS GRAZING THE
PETITIONER'S PROPERTY

¶237

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶238

`Exhibit R4(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF` `DATED NIL`	`THE`	`SETTLEMENT REGISTER`
`Exhibit R4(b)`	`TRUE COPY OF TH` `WP(C) NO.649 OF`	`E ORD` `2018`	`ER OF THE APEX COURT IN` `DATED 05.07.2018`
`Exhibit-R1(a)`	`TRUE COPIES OF` `DATED NIL.`	`THE`	`SETTLEMENT REGISTER`

¶239

40

¶240

W.P.(C)Nos.4288 & 15507 of 2023

¶241

Exhibit-R1(b) THE LAND REGISTER DATED NIL

Rajendran.K.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran.K.B 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

Jeevanlal P.K Vs Mukthar Ahammed

Ayishabi Vs M. Imbicheebi

Devotees of Thelliyoor Kavu Devi Temple Vs the Devaswom Commissioner

Koonamavu St.Philomina’S Sadhu Jana Sanghom No. 145 Vs Travancore Devaswom Board - Tdb

Eripuram Sreekrishna Temple Vs State of Kerala

Jo Augustine Vs Ambili Jo