Rangorath Gokul Prasad Vs Smt.C.Beena

¶1

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 1 2025:KER:28251

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2023 IN WP(C) NO.23626 OF

¶10

2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶11

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶12

RANGORATH GOKUL PRASAD,
AGED 57 YEARS,
S/O LATE GOPINATHAN, 13/393- C & D, A BLOCK, SUDARSANA
APARTMENTS (FORMERLY CHEMMARIKKAT APARTMENT),
KALLIPADAM P.O., SHORANUR, PALAKKAD (DT),
KERALA, PIN – 679122.

¶13

BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS/1ST AND 8TH RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

¶15

1 SMT.C.BEENA,
AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,
HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
KERALA, PIN – 673006.

¶16

2 SRI.K.P.VISWANATHAN,
AGE AND FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE TRUSTEE, SREE RAMANATHAPURAM GRAMA DEVASWOM,
RAMANATHAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN – 678105.

¶17

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 2 2025:KER:28251

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SMT. R. RANJANIE, SC, MDB

¶20

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 3 2025:KER:28251

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Anil K. Narendran, J.

¶24

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom, Palakkad District, which is a controlled institution under the Malabar Devaswom Board, has filed this Contempt Case, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure-1 judgment of this Court dated 19.07.2023 in W.P.(C)No.23626 of 2015, whereby the 2^nd respondent, who is the Trustee of Ramanadhapuram Grama Devaswom was directed to take appropriate action to retrieve possession of 99 cents of property comprised in Survey No.961 in Block No.24 of Palakkad2 Village belonging to that Devaswom. Paragraphs 13 to 16 of that judgment read thus:

¶25

“13. From the rival contentions of the parties in this case, it is not able to ascertain whether the purchase certificate claimed to have been obtained from the Land Tribunal in respect of the property in question was with notice to the 3^rd respondent-Devaswom or the additional 8^th respondent-Trustee of the Temple. But as a matter of fact, a purchase certificate was issued as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1971 in respect of that property. In the absence of any

¶26

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 4 2025:KER:28251

¶27

materials, it cannot be said that the purchase certificate so issued is shrouded by fraud, if materials to show, at least prima facie, that the purchase certificate suffers from legal infractions, this Court would be obliged to consider whether the purchase certificate is liable to be invalidated. If the purchase certificate was issued by the Land Tribunal after hearing the trustee of the temple, validity of the said purchase certificate can be assailed only by the procedure established by the law. If the property in question is one exempted under Section 3(i)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act also, it would have been possible to examine validity of the purchase certificate in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners or respondents 1 to 3 or the additional 8^th respondent did not place any material on record to probablise such a fact also. 14. In such circumstances, we are of the view that respondent No.3 and additional 8^th respondent, who are administering Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom can be directed to take appropriate action in the matter. Indisputably, the said temple is a religious institution under the control of Malabar Devaswom Board. As per the provisions of Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Malabar Devaswom Board has obligation to see that administration of every religious institution and

¶28

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 5 2025:KER:28251

¶29

endowment under its control is duly done. Therefore the Malabar Devaswom Board and its officials have to take appropriate supervisory steps in order to ensure that the 3^rd respondent and the additional 8^th respondent take all legally possible steps to reclaim 99 cents of land described herein before to the possession of the temple. No further relief as prayed in the writ petition is liable to be granted.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶31

i) The 3^rd respondent and the additional 8^th respondent, who are administering Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom are directed to take appropriate action to retrieve possession of 99 cents of land comprised in survey No.961 in Block No.24 of Palakkad-2 Village belonging to the Devaswom; and ii) The 1^st respondent Malabar Devaswom Board is directed to take appropriate supervisory steps in order to ensure that the 3^rd respondent and the additional 8^th respondent take all legally possible steps to reclaim the said 99 cents of land to the possession of the Sree Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom.”

¶32

On 30.07.2024, when this contempt case came up for

¶33

consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Malabar Devaswom Board sought time to get instructions.

¶34

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 6 2025:KER:28251

¶35

Today when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Trustee of Ramanathapuram Grama Devaswom would submit that challenging the purchase certificate in respect of the aforesaid 99 cents of land, the Trustee has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur, invoking the provisions under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on 06.03.2025. The submission of the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent is that since old documents have to be traced out, there occurred some delay in filing the appeal.

¶36

Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to close this Contempt Case, recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

The Contempt Case is closed accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

¶42

DSV/-

¶43

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1734 OF 2024 7 2025:KER:28251

¶44

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1734/2024

¶45

PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES

¶46

`Annexure 1`	`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)` `NO.23626 OF 2015 DATED 19-07-2023.`
`Annexure 2`	`TRUE COPY OF REPLY RECEIVED TO THE` `PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION` `ACT VIDE RTI.NO1619/2024/MDV DATED 03-05-` `2024.`
`Annexure 3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH E-MAIL DATED 08-` `01-2024 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`Annexure 4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `ON 25-03-2024.`
`Annexure 5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15-01-2024 BEFORE` `THE STATE OF KERALA PERTAINING TO THE` `PROPERTY IN SY.NO.961 OF 2024.`
`Annexure 6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)` `NO.8152/2024 DATED 21-03-2024.`
`Annexure 7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-01-2011` `IN JAGPAL SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF` `PUNJAB AND OR. IN CIVIL APPEAL` `NO.1132/2011.`
`Annexure 8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-11-2019` `IN JITHENDRA SINGH VS. MINISTRY OF` `ENVIRONMENT AND ORS. (CIVIL APPEAL NO.5109` `OF 2019)`

Rangorath Gokul Prasad v. Smt.C.Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangorath Gokul Prasad v. Smt.C.Beena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Purushothaman Nair Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Vijayan T @ Thankaraj Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

P.K. Prasannan Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala Public Service Commission, Vs Aziya S.

The General Manager (Personal) Vs v.T.Radhakrishnan

Joythish .S Vs State of Kerala Represented by It’S Secretary to Government