Kerala High Court
Vaikkathur Kshetra Samrakshana ... vs State Of Kerala on 12 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
W.P.(C) NO. 6504 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 VAIKKATHUR KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI
REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT, R. SURESH KUMAR,
VAIKKATHUR, VALANCHERRY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 552.
2 K.V.MADHAVAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, CHARATHU GOVT. HOSPITAL
ROAD, VAIKKATHOOR, VALANCHERRY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 552.
3 P.NARAYANAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.KORU, MANAGING TRUSTEE, SREE AYYAPPA TRUST,
PALATHOTTILVEEDU, VAIKKATHOOR, VALACHERRY,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 552.
BY ADV S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEVASWOM, DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 MALABAR DEVASWOMBOARD
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006.
2
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
3 THE COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 006.
4 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM - 679 101.
5 THE AREA COMMITTEE
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, MALAPPURAM DIVISION,
REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 678 10.
6 M.VASUDEVAN
OORALAN, MAZHUVANCHERY MANA, VAIKATHOOR,
VALANCHERY POST, PIN - 676 552.
7* PRASAD K
S/O.KANAKKARAAY K, KOVALAN HOUSE, VAIKATHOOR,
VALANCHERY, MALAPURAM DIST-676552.
8* MURALI N
S/O. N.K.NARAYANAN ELAYATH,
NEDUMKOMBIL ELLAM, VAIKATHOOR, VALANCHERY,
MALAPURAM DIST-676552
9* RAMAKRISHNAN K T
S/O.NARAYANA NAIR, PRARTHANA, VAIKATHOOR,
VALANCHERY, MALAPURAM DIST-676552.
10** THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
UP HILL POST, MALAPPURAM-676505.
11** THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VALANCHERY POLICE STATION,VALANCHERY,
MALAPPURAM-676552.
12*** RAMACHANDRAN P.,
PONNOTH, S/O. C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
PONNOTH HOUSE, MARAMKUNNU, VALANCHERRY.P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676552.
3
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
13*** K.V. NARAYANAN,
ADMINISTRATION IN CHARGE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PADINJARAE MADOM,
DEVASWOM, PATTAMBI, MALAPPURAM DIST-679303.
*ADDL RESPONDENTS 7 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 21-12-2021 IN IA 6/2021.
**ADDL RESPONDENTS 10 AND 11 ARE SUO MOTU
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21-12-2021 IN
WP(C).
***ADDITIONAL R12 AND R13 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 17-03-2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN
WP(C)6504/2021.
BY ADVS.
R1 & R11 BY SRI S. RAJMOHAN- SR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER
R2 TO R5 BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, CDB
R6 TO R9 BY SRI.M.DEVESH
R13 BY SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 22.12.2022, THE COURT ON 12.01.2023 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
4
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
Ext.P6 is an order issued by the 3 rd respondent to
assume the administration of Sree Vaikkathoor Mahadeva
Temple for which an Executive Officer was appointed. The
petitioners filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking to issue a writ of certiorari
quashing Ext.P6. They claim further reliefs of a declaration
that the 1st petitioner Vaikkathur Kshetra Samrakshana
Samithi is the trustee of the Temple, and a writ of mandamus
so as to allow the 1st petitioner to continue in the
administration of the Temple.
2. The 1st petitioner is the Vaikkathur Kshetra
Samrakshana Samithi represented by its president. The 2 nd
petitioner claims to be its Secretary. The 3rd petitioner
claims to be the Managing Trustee of Sree Ayyappa Trust,
which had administered Sree Vaikkathoor Mahadeva Temple
till 1976. The Temple originally belonged to Mazhuvancheri
Illam. Since the Ooralans were not able to carry on its
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
administration, the 1st petitioner Samithi was entrusted with
the administration of the Temple for which Ext.P1 agreement
was executed. The 1st petitioner was registered later under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Ext.P2 is its bye-law. The
office bearers of the Samithi are elected every 2 years.
Making use of the contribution from the devotees, the Samithi
acquired huge assets for the Temple. However, during 2018
alleging that there occurred misappropriation of funds, the 4 th
respondent issued Ext.P3 notice inviting application for
appointment of non-hereditary trustees in the Temple. The
petitioners filed W.P.(C) No.32047 of 2019 challenging Ext.P3.
Despite that, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P4 dated
08.01.2021 appointing non-hereditary trustees in exercise of
the powers under Section 39(2) of the Madras Hindu Religious
Charitable Endowment Act, 1951 (for short HR&CE Act). The
non-hereditary trustees so appointed are ineligible persons.
The petitioners therefore filed W.P.(C) No.2048 of 2021
challenging Ext.P4 order as per which the non-hereditary
trustees were appointed. This Court disposed of the said Writ
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
Petition as per Ext.P5 judgement directing the 3 rd respondent-
Commissioner to consider the revision petition filed before
him challenging Ext.P4 order. While so, the 4 th respondent
issued Ext.P6 dated 17.02.2021 assuming the administration
of the Temple purportedly in the exercise of its powers under
Section 8B of the HR&CE Act. The said order is illegal,
irregular and unconstitutional. Hence, the petitioners filed this
Writ Petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
3. When this Writ Petition came up for admission on
15.03.2021, the learned Senior Government Pleader took
notice for respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel
for the Malabar Devaswom Board took notice for respondents
2 to 5. Respondents 7 to 9 were impleaded as per the order in
I.A.No.6 of 2021. Subsequently, respondents 10 and 11 and
also respondents 12 and 13 were additionally impleaded.
4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit
disputing the claim that the 1 st petitioner is the trustee of the
Temple. It was further contended that Ext.P1 is an illegal
document and the petitioners did not obtain any right over
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
the Temple by virtue of that document. Placing reliance on
Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) it is contended that after obtaining
consent of the hereditary trustee only, steps for appointing
non-hereditary trustees were taken. The Board of Trustees
was constituted including a representative of the hereditary
trustee. The petitioners have filed O.S.No. 47 of 2021 before
the Munsiff's Court, Tirur regarding the same matter. Hence
they are disentitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is true that
the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The
further contention is that the Executive Officer was appointed
invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the HR&CE Act in
order to see that the administration of the Temple is done in
an appropriate manner. The petitioners by filing civil suit and
resorting to clandestine and surreptitious activities created a
situation befalling the administration of the Temple is total
disarray and that compelled the 4 th respondent to appoint an
Executive officer. Accordingly, the 4 th respondent sought to
dismiss the Writ Petition as not maintainable.
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
5. Respondent No.11 has filed a statement to the
effect that in terms of Ext.P6, the administration of the
Temple was taken over by the Executive Officer and a
complaint lodged by one Sri.Narayanan, Chairman of the
Ayyappan Trust Board was closed opining that what transpired
was only taking over of the administration by the Executive
Officer in discharge of his official duty and no cognizable
offence was revealed.
6. Respondent Nos.7 to 9 filed a counter affidavit
justifying their appointment as non-hereditary trustee. It is
further contended that a revision petition challenging their
appointment was filed before the 3rd respondent-
Commissioner and the same after due consideration was
rejected as per Ext.R7(a) order.
7. Additional respondent No.13 also filed a counter
affidavit wherein it was contended that very constitution of
the 1st petitioner Samithi is illegal for, it is against the circular
dated 15.06.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, a copy of
which is Ext.R13(a). Further contention is that the 1 st
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
petitioner cannot claim to be a trustee of the Temple and the
non-hereditary trustee was appointed with the consent of the
hereditary trustee only. The additional 13th respondent
produced Exts.R13(c) to (m) in order to substantiate that
there have been gross mismanagement and malfeasance in
the administration of the temple affairs by the 1st petitioner.
8. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit
controverting the contentions of the respondents and further
stating that even after Ext.P8 order of injunction, the non-
hereditary trustees are functioning and usurping the powers,
they are involving in the administration of the Temple,
including money trasanctions.
9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Malabar Devaswom Board,
and learned respective counsel appearing for the party
respondents.
10. It is beyond dispute that Sree Vaikkathoor
Mahadeva Temple is a religious institution included in List-B
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
published for the purpose of Section 38 of the HR&CE Act.
The essential contention of the petitioners is that having the
Ooralans of the Temple transferred the right of its
administration in favour of the 1 st petitioner-Samithi, it has
become the trustee of the Temple within the meaning of
Section 6(19) of the HR&CE Act. Since the 1st petitioner is
the trustee, it has every right to administer the Temple and
the 2nd respondent Board or its officials could not have
taken over administration of the Temple without its
permission. It is the contention of the petitioners that for
the reasons; firstly, that there is no proof for
mismanagement on the part of the 1st petitioner and
secondly, that the provisions of Section 8B of the HR&CE
Act are not complied with, there could not be a valid
assumption of the Temple. The learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners would further contend that the 1 st
petitioner being the trustee the 3 rd respondent was
obligated to give notice to it before taking steps for
appointment of non-hereditary trustee. There is total
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
infraction of the said procedure and therefore Ext.P4 as well
as Ext.P6 are sought to be declared illegal.
11. Section 6(19) of the HR&CE Act reads,-
"6. Definition.- xx xx (19) "tustee" means any person or
body by whatever designation known in whom or in
which the administration of a religious institution is
vested, and includes any person or body who or which is
liable as if such person or body were a trustee."
12. In order for a body or a person to be a trustee, the
entire administration should be vested with it. There is no
dispute that Sree Vaikkathoor Mahadeva Temple is a religious
institution as defined in Section 6(19) of the HR&CE Act, having
it been included in the list of Hindu religious institutions for the
purpose of Section 38 of the HR&CE Act, its assets and
properties are vested with the Deity.
13. The petitioners claim that by executing Ext.P1,
which is an agreement dated 01.03.1976, the entire assets
and properties of the Temple along with the right of its
administration were transferred in favour of the 1st petitioner-
Samithi. The Samithi was later registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and a copy of the certificate of
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
registration together with its bye-law is Ext.P2. As per the
recitals in Ext.P1, Ooralans agreed to transfer the right of
administration in favour of the Samithi. The question is, can
Ext.P1 create the right of trusteeship in favour of the 1 st
petitioner.
14. The Apex Court in Kali Kinkor Ganguly v. Panna
Banerjee and others [(1974) 2 SCC 563] held that
alienation of a religious office by which the transferer gets a
pecuniary benefit cannot be upheld even if a custom is set up
sanctioning such alienation. It was further observed that even
if the transfer is not for consideration, the transfer would be
bad if it is not in favour of those next in the line of succession.
15. As far as Temples under the supervisory control of
the Malabar Devaswom Board are concerned, any transfer of
the assets and properties of the Temple can be done only in
accordance with Section 29 of the HR&CE Act. Section 29
interdicts such transfer made without sanction from the
Commissioner. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid decision, and the prohibition in Section
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
29 of the HR&CE Act, the assets and properties of Temples
under the supervisory control of the Malabar Devaswom Board
are res extra commercium unless and until the Commissioner
grants sanction for such transfer. When the assets of Sree
Vaikkathoor Mahadeva Temple are thus inalienable, the
petitioners cannot claim that by virtue of Ext.P1, the 1 st
petitioner acquired right and interest in the properties of the
Temple, including the right of its administration, thereby it has
become the trustee displacing the Ooralan or the hereditary
trustee.
16. When that is the position of law, the challenge set
up by the petitioners in the capacity of the trustees against
Ext.P4 as per which the non-hereditary trustees were
appointed and Ext.P6 as per which additional respondent
No.13 was appointed to administer the Temple cannot be
entertained in law. That apart, when the 1 st petitioner Samithi
claims that it is the trustee, the remedy available to it to
challenge vires of the order appointing non-hereditary
trustees is under Section 39(4) of the HR&CE Act. Of course,
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
the Samithi filed O.S.No.47 of 2021 before the Munsiff's
Court, Tirur, challenging right of the non-hereditary trustees.
Ext.P8 is the order of injunction granted by the learned
Munsiff restraining non-hereditary trustees from taking over
possession of the records and movables of the Temple. The
definition of the court contained in Section 6(6) of the HR&CE
Act, constitutes a subordinate judge's court to decide the
dispute relating to appointment of non-hereditary trustees.
Can then a Munsiff's Court have jurisdiction to entertain such
a suit is a relevant question. That question is not, however,
germane for consideration in this proceedings. Dehors that
the fact remains that the remedy available to challenge the
appointment of non-hereditary trustee is under Section 39(4)
HR&CE Act. When such a statutory remedy is available, no
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
ordinarily be granted.
17. In M/s Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v.
State of Bihar [2021 (5) KLT 667 (SC)] the Apex Court
held,
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
"19. While a High Court would normally would not
exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate
remedy is available, the existence of an alternate
remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from
exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies. This
principle has been crystallized by this Court in Whirpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai
[1999 (1) KLT OnLine 908 (SC) : (1998) 8 SCC 1)]
and Harbanslal Sahni v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
[2003 (1) KLT OnLine 1161 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC
107].
20. Recently, in Radha Krishan Industries v. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others [2021 (2) KLT
OnLine 1158 (SC) : (2021) SCC OnLine SC 334] a
two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us was a
part of (Justice D. Y. Chandrachud) has summarized the
principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by
the High Court in the presence of an alternative remedy.
This Court has observed:
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Art.226 of the Constitution to
issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement
of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain
a Writ Petition. One of the restrictions placed on the
power of the High Court is where an effective alternate
remedy is available to the aggrieved person;
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise
where,-
(a) the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement
of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the
Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice;
(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction; or
(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the
High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a
writ petition should not be entertained when an
efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the
right or liability, resort must be had to that particular
statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary
remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of
exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy,
convenience and discretion; and
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in
a Writ Petition. However, if the High Court is objectively
of the view that the nature of the controversy requires
the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with." (emphasis supplied)
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
18. A plea based on violation of any fundamental right of
the petitioners is not involved in this case. A civil suit in regard to
the dispute involved in this Writ Petition was already filed by the
petitioners. It may be noted that following the direction of this
Court as per Ext.P5 judgement in W.P.(C) No.2048 of 2021, the
3rd respondent disposed the revision petition challenging
appointment of the non-hereditary trustees as per Ext.P4.
Ext.R7(a) is the order. The challenge to Ext.P4 was repelled as
per Ext.R7(a). Rightly or wrongly such an order was passed by
the Commissioner. The remedy then is to challenge Ext.P7(a)
before the Government under Section 99 of the HR&CE Act. That
has not been resorted to. In such circumstances, we are of the
view that this Writ Petition is not maintainable and the
petitioners are not entitled to get any of the reliefs claimed.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6504/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
1.3.1976 EXECUTED BY THE OORALAN
(HEREDITARY TRUSTEE) IN FAVOUR OF THE
SAMITHI.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BYE LAW OF THE
SAMITHI WITH REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
AND MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.8.2019
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2021
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.2.2021 IN WP(c) N0.2048/2021 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.2.2021
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 17.2.1991
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2/2021 IN
OS NO.47/2021 DATED 10.2.2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT
DATED 3.8.2021.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING NUMBER
AFFIXED IN THE BUILDING BY THE
VALANCHERY MUNICIPALITY, AS BUILDING
NO 8/1658.
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 11.11.2021 ISSUED BY
THE KATTIPARUTHY VILLAGE OFFICER.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE
DY SUPDT OF POLICE DATED 3.11.2021.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO APPEARED IN THE
MEDIA SHOWING HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE
POLITICAL PARTY CONFERENCE OF DYFI.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DAED
07.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTER PUBLISHED
DURING THE ELECTION PERIOD.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
03.02.2021.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE R4(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
26.12.2018.
ANNEXURE R4(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
21.02.2019.
ANNEXURE R4(C) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.H6-2334/MDB
DATED 27.03.2021.
ANNEXURE R4(D) PHOTOCOPY OF LIST OF INVENTORY,
PREPARED BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER ON
30.10.2021, MADE AVAILABLE BY
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT R7(A) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.04.2021 IN
R.P.2/2021 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER,
MDB.
EXHIBIT R7(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED
09.02.2021 IN O.S.47/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
EXHIBIT R7(C) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
DATED 10.11.2021 FILED BY RESPONDENTS
7 TO 9 IN O.S.NO.47/2021 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR.
EXHIBIT R7(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION CITED IN
2021 (2) KLT 885.
ANNEXURE R11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER DATED 28.10.2021
ALONG WITH THE ORDER NO.H6
2334/2018/MDB(4) DATED 21.10.2021 OF
MDB.
EXHIBIT R13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.HRH
5/8246/06 DATED 15.06.2007 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE LIST DATED
22.02.2021 BY WHICH THIS RESPONDENT
TOOK CUSTODY OF THE ARTICLES MENTIONED
THEREIN.
EXHIBIT R13(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
11.03.2021 ISSUED BY THIS REPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2.
EXHIBIT R13(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY letter dated
26.03.2021 ISSUED BY SRI.E.P.GOVINDAN,
PRESIDENT OF 1ST PETITIONER SAMITHI
AND OFFICE BEARER OF AYYAPPA TRUST.
EXHIBIT R13(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
21.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 13TH
RESPONDENT TO THE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY
AND TREASURER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
SAMITHI.
EXHIBIT R13(F) TRUE COPLY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED
26.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT NO.13.
W.P.(C) No.6504 of 2021
EXHIBIT R13(G) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.H67-
2334/2019/ MDB(1) DATED 21.10.2021
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(H) TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE LIST DATED
30.10.2021 PREPARED BY THIS RESPONDENT
AND COUNTERSIGNED BY THE DIVISION
INSPECTOR OF MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
AND THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTIPARUTHI.
EXHIBIT R13(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE LANDED
PROPERTY LYING IN THE NAME OF THE
TEMPLE, PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KATTIPARUTHI.
EXHIBIT R13(J) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE LANDED
PROPERTY LYING IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KATTIPARUTHI.
EXHIBIT R13(K) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND
EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF THE TEMPLE
FROM 22.02.2021 TO 31.12.2021.
EXHIBIT R13(L) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.H6-
4952/2021/MDB(KDIS) DATED 18.012.2021
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R13(M) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
10.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
