Kerala High Court
Travancore Devaswom Board vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:23518
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY,
PIN - 695601.
BY ADV G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP.BY SPECIAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PIN - 695001.
2 DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,
SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, NEAR KSRTC STAND, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683572.
4 THE TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
CHIRAKKAL MAHADEVA TEMPLE, PULIYANAM, ERNAKULAM,
REP.BY IT'S PRESIDENT, PIN - 683572.
5 REMADEVI,
AGED 50 YEARS,
D/O PARAMESHWARAN NAIR, POOMKUDI (H), KANJOOR P.O.,
KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, "NOW RESIDING AT C/O.
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:23518
MOHANAN, "RAJEEVAM", SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683580.
6 RAJEEV KUMAR,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O. PARAMESHWARAN NAIR, "NOW RESIDING AT C/O
REMADEVI, "RAJEEVAM", SREEMOOLANAGARAM P.O., ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683580.
BY ADVS.
Haridas V N
K.R.PRATHISH
P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN(K/581/2005)
SAIFUDEEN T.S(K/000746/2018)
B.SHAMEERA(K/349/2009)
NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN(K/003702/2023)
R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)(K/292/1989)
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP;
SRI. G. SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, TDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:23518
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple is a PD Devaswom (Personal
Deposit Devaswom) under the management of the petitioner
Travancore Devaswom Board. The said temple is included in the
schedule to the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions
Act, 1950. The Board has filed this writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the 3rd respondent Station House Officer, Angamaly
Police Station, to act upon Ext.P4 complaint dated 29.01.2025,
made by the Assistant Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom
Board, Paravur, and Ext.P5 complaint dated 29.01.2025 made by
the 4th respondent Temple Advisory Committee and to provide
necessary support and assistance to the Board for the smooth
conduct of the annual festival of the temple, which was scheduled
to commence from 15.02.2025 to 22.02.2025, as well as the
preparations for that festival. The petitioner has also sought for a
writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent District Survey
Superintendent to conduct a joint survey along with the Special
Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Travancore Devaswom Board, by
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:23518
measuring the entire extent of the properties in dispute, with
recourse to the old and new revenue records, and thereafter take
necessary steps to evict the encroachments; and a declaration
that respondents 5 and 6 do not have any right to prevent the
Board from performing the arattu ritual of Chirakkal Mahadeva
Temple, through the access in Survey No.167/9 of Parakkadavu
Village, as done in the previous years, as revealed by Ext.P1
photographs.
2. On 11.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on
admission for respondents 1 to 3. Notice on admission by special
messenger was ordered to respondents 4 to 6, returnable by
13.02.2025. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed
to get instructions from the 3rd respondent Station House Officer.
3. On 13.02.2025, when this matter came up for
consideration, the 4th respondent Temple Advisory Committee and
respondents 5 and 6 entered appearance through respective
counsel. The learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom
Board and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Temple
Advisory Committee submitted that respondents 5 and 6 have
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:23518
filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Aluva as O.S.No.58 of 2025,
seeking an injunction against the members of the Temple Advisory
Committee, on the allegation that the construction of the
compound wall is being obstructed by them. The interim relief
sought for in that suit is an order of injunction preventing entry of
the members of the Temple Advisory Committee, who are arrayed
as defendants in that suit, to the property of the plaintiffs, from
the temple premises. Though the temple in question is one
managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, respondents 5 and
6 have chosen to file that suit, without Travancore Devaswom
Board, represented by its Secretary, the Assistant Devaswom
Commissioner, Paravur and the Sub Group Officer, Chirakkal
Devaswom, as parties to that proceedings. On a query made by
this Court, Adv.P.K. Sreevalsakrishnan, the learned counsel for
respondents 5 and 6, submitted that the said suit is one filed
through Adv.Biju Raj. Since the learned Senior Government
Pleader sought some more time to get instructions, the matter
was ordered to be listed at 3.30 p.m. When the matter was taken
up again at 3.30 p.m., the learned counsel for respondents 5 and
6 made available for the perusal of this Court a copy of the plaint
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:23518
in O.S.No.58 of 2025 filed before the Munsiff Court, Aluva. A copy
of the purchase certificate dated 15.01.1974 issued by the Land
Tribunal, Parakkadavu, which was obtained by the father of
respondents 5 and 6, in respect of the land in Re-survey No.167/9
of Parakkadavu Village, was also produced as an exhibit in the said
suit.
4. By a detailed order dated 14.02.2025, this Court
directed respondents 5 and 6 to file an additional counter affidavit,
explaining their conduct in filing O.S.No.58 of 2025 before the
Munsiff Court, Aluva, suppressing material facts from the notice of
that Court, and without the Travancore Devaswom Board
represented by its Secretary and the Temple Advisory Committee
of that temple constituted under Section 31A of the Travancore-
Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, as defendants in the
party array. The said order reads thus;
"On 13.02.2025, when this writ petition came up for
consideration, this Court passed a detailed order in the
forenoon, which was followed by another order passed at
03.30 p.m.
2. Today, when this matter is taken up for consideration,
Sri.Lakshminarayan, the learned Senior Counsel enters
appearance for respondents 5 and 6, through Adv. K.R.
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:23518
Prathish, the learned instructing counsel. The learned Senior
Counsel would submit that counter affidavit of respondents
5 and 6 is being filed today.
3. The Station House Officer, Angamaly Police Station, is
personally present in Court to instruct the learned Senior
Government Pleader.
4. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader
for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4 th
respondent Temple Advisory Committee and also the
learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6, as
instructed by the instructing counsel, would submit that
respondents 5 and 6 have no intention to cause any
obstruction whatsoever in the 'Aaraatt Ezhunnallippu' of
Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple, scheduled to be held in terms
of Ext.P7 festival notice. Without prejudice to the legal and
factual contentions taken in the counter affidavit filed by
respondents 5 and 6, today as Benchmark, the learned
Senior Counsel would submit that the said respondents have
no objection in the Devaswom officials of Chirakkal
Mahadeva Temple or the office bearers of the 4th respondent
Temple Advisory Committee clearing the bushes in their
property comprised in Survey No.167/9 of Parakkadavu
Village to have access to the temple pond for 'Aarattu
Ezhunnallippu' on elephant, as part of the temple festival.
6. The learned Senior Counsel has made available for the
perusal of this Court, a copy of the report of the Advocate
Commissioner in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.58 of 2025 on
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:23518
the file of the Munsiff Court, Aluva. A rough sketch prepared
by the Advocate Commissioner also forms part of that
report.
7. As evident from Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.12.2023 in
W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023, the petitioners in that writ petition
are the members of the Temple Advisory Committee of
Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple. The said fact is stated in
paragraph 1 of Ext.P2 judgment. Respondents 5 and 6
herein were respondents 15 and 16 in W.P.(C)No.2310 of
2023 and they were represented by counsel before this
Court. Despite knowing that the petitioners in
W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023 are the members of the Temple
Advisory Committee of Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple,
constituted under the Bye-laws (Rules) framed under sub-
section (3) of Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu
Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and that the said temple is
one under the management of the Travancore Devaswom
Board, respondents 5 and 6 have chosen to file O.S.No.58
of 2025 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, arraying the writ
petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023 as defendants in that
suit, without disclosing the fact that they are the members
of the Temple Advisory Committee of Chirakkal Mahadeva
Temple. The specific stand taken in paragraph 5 of this writ
petition is that on 29.01.2025, the 5th respondent made an
attempt to enclose the Aarattu Vazhi situated in Survey
No.167/9 by constructing a compound wall, which was
prevented by the timely intervention of the Temple Advisory
Committee and the Devaswom Board. Regarding the said
incident, the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Paravur
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:23518
submitted Ext.P4 complaint dated 29.01.2025 and the 4th
respondent Temple Advisory Committee submitted Ext.P5
complaint dated 29.01.2025 before the 3rd respondent
Station House Officer, Angamaly Police Station. From the
copy of the plaint in O.S.No.58 of 2025 made available for
the perusal of this Court, we notice that respondents 5 and
6 filed the said plaint before the Munsiff Court, Aluva only
on 05.02.2025, much after Exts.P4 and P5 complaints made
on 29.01.2025. The conduct of respondents 5 and 6 in
approaching the Munsiff Court, Aluva in O.S.No.58 of 2025,
with an attempt to secure interim injunction, suppressing
material facts from the notice of that court, cannot be
viewed lightly. In the said suit, with an intention to secure
interim injunction, behind the back of the Travancore
Devaswom Board, respondents 5 and 6 have chosen to array
the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023 as defendants,
without disclosing the fact that they are the members of the
Temple Advisory Committee of Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple.
8. In the above circumstances, we deem it appropriate to
direct respondents 5 and 6 to file an additional counter
affidavit, explaining their conduct in filing O.S.No.58 of 2025
before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, suppressing material facts
from the notice of that court and without the Travancore
Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary and the
Temple Advisory Committee of that temple constituted
under Section 31A of the Act as defendants in the party
array.
9. The additional counter affidavit of respondents 5 and 6
and the counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent shall be
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:23518
placed on record before the next posting date."
5. Respondents 5 and 6 have filed a counter affidavit
dated 14.02.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ
petition, producing therewith Exts.R5(a) to R5(h) documents. In
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that at the time
of filing O.S.No.58 of 2025 before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, they
were not aware that the persons who obstructed them, though
they are the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023, which
culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, were obstructing the construction
of the compound wall on the basis of a claim that the property
belongs to the Devaswom.
6. On the above contention, we notice the first paragraph
of Ext.P2 judgment dated 18.10.2023 of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023, in which respondents 5 and 6 herein
were arrayed as respondents 15 and 16. The first paragraph of
Ext.P2 judgment reads thus;
"Petitioners, the devotees of Chirakkal Sree Mahadeva
Temple, who are presently the members of the Temple
Advisory Committee constituted under Section 31A of the
Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950,
have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:23518
respondents 1 to 5 to reclaim/recover 10 acres of land in
old Survey Nos.167/1, 167/13, 168/4, 169/1 and 177/5 of
Parakkadavu Village, belonging to the Chirakkal Sree
Mahadeva Temple, expeditiously, in a time bound manner
to be fixed by this Court; a writ of mandamus commanding
the 3rd respondent Devaswom Commissioner to act on
Ext.P9 complaint made by the petitioners, in a time bound
manner to be fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 6 and 7 to ensure that no waste
is flowing into the temple pond from the manufacturing unit
of respondent No.20."
7. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated
27.02.2025 to the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 5 and 6
would point out the averments in paragraph 5 of the reply affidavit
that respondents 5 and 6 are persons belonging to the party
included in the ruling front, which holds the portfolio of the
Revenue Department and therefore, they are enforcing all kinds
of pressure tactics to save their property. The learned Senior
Counsel would submit that such a statement should not have been
made in the affidavit sworn to on behalf of the Travancore
Devaswom Board, by its Secretary, since the President and the
Members of the Travancore Devaswom Board are persons who are
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 12 2025:KER:23518
closely associated with political parties.
9. We do not propose to consider the rival contentions on
the above aspect in this writ petition.
10. '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].
11. 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 13 2025:KER:23518
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.
12. In Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair
[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, 1963 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.
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 14 2025:KER:23518
13. In Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] the Division
Bench relied on the decision in Achuthan Pillai v. State of
Kerala [1970 KLT 838], wherein a Full Bench of this Court
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 Bench
held that the power to cancel a sanction and thereby to 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 15 2025:KER:23518
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 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 contention 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 16 2025:KER:23518
his or their hands such property. The reason behind the section is
that an express trust ought not suffer by the misfeasance or non-
feasance of a trustee.
14. In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others
[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
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
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 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.
15. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 17 2025:KER:23518
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 [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 and there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step
to ensure that the property of the deity is protected.
16. In Jayaprakashan K. v. State of Kerala and others
[2023 (3) KHC SN 14 : 2023 (3) KLT 541] a Division Bench of
this Court, in which one among us [Anil K. Narendran, J.] was a
party, noticed that in view of the provisions under sub-section (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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 18 2025:KER:23518
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 or church, created by
the owner, trustee or manager of such temple, mosque or church.
In view of the provisions under sub-section (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 prefer claims or objections with regard
to the application. As per 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 sub-section (1) and after making due enquiries, pass
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 19 2025:KER:23518
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 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 20 2025:KER:23518
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
land, if any, owned by him or his family, as the case may be, be
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 vesting of the
right, title and interest of the landowners and intermediaries in
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 21 2025:KER:23518
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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 22 2025:KER:23518
per 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 sub-
section (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.
17. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] the
Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions under
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 23 2025:KER:23518
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 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 24 2025:KER:23518
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 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 25 2025:KER:23518
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.
The said proposition of law about limitation of the exercise of
statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M.R. in the 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 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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 26 2025:KER:23518
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 the
respective Devaswom Board, represented by its Secretary, in 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.
18. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14], in
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
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 27 2025:KER:23518
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 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.
19. In the order dated 14.02.2025, this Court noticed the
submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for respondents
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 28 2025:KER:23518
5 and 6 that the said respondents have no intention to cause any
obstruction whatsoever in 'Aaraatt Ezhunnallippu' of Chirakkal
Mahadeva Temple, scheduled to be held in terms of Ext.P7 festival
notice. The said submission was one made by the learned Senior
Counsel, without prejudice to the legal and factual contentions
taken in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6.
20. After the aforesaid order of this Court, 'Aaraattu
Ezhunnallippu' in connection with the annual festival of Chirakkal
Mahadeva Temple was conducted, as scheduled in Ext.P7 festival
notice. Though the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore
Devaswom Board for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel
for respondents 5 and 6 would raise rival contentions on the title
and ownership of the disputed property, we do not propose to
consider that aspect in this writ petition, since the proceedings
initiated by the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) pursuant to
the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated
18.10.2023 in W.P.(C)No.2310 of 2023 is yet to be finalised.
Considering the nature of contentions raised by both sides, we
deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent District Survey
Superintendent, Ernakulam to finalise the proceedings already
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 29 2025:KER:23518
initiated by the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), pursuant to
the direction contained in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court, with
notice to the Travancore Devaswom Board, respondents 5 and 6
and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an
opportunity of being heard, 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 taking note of the law laid
down in the decisions referred to supra. It would be open to the
Travancore Devaswom Board, respondents 5 and 6 and also the
affected parties, if any, to submit written submissions before the
2nd respondent, along with supporting documents, which shall be
considered by the said respondent.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 30 2025:KER:23518
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5575/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
Exhibit-P1 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ARATTU BEING
PERFORMED THROUGH THE SAID PROPERTY DURING
THE YEAR 2024.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/10/2023
IN W.P.(C) NO. 2310/2023.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DATED
NIL FURNISHED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR IN
W.P(C) NO.2310/2023.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/01/2025
SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PARAVUR.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29/01/2025
PREFERRED BY THE TAC BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.
Exhibit-P6 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
COMPOUND WALL ALONG WITH THE SKETCH.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FESTIVAL NOTICE OF
CHIRAKKAL MAHADEVA TEMPLE COMMENCING FROM
15/02/2025.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
Exhibit R5(a) True copy of purchase certificate no.
2755/1975 dated 15.1.1974 of Land Tribunal,
Parakkadavu
Exhibit R5 (b) True copy of registered Will No.90/2009
dated 19.06.2009
Exhibit R5(c) True copy of land tax receipt
KL07040200782/2025 issued by Village
Office, Parakkadavu in my name for the
period 2024-25 dated 03.02.2025
Exhibit R5(d) True copy of land tax receipt
KL07040214749/2024 issued by Village
WP(C) NO. 5575 OF 2025 31 2025:KER:23518
Office, Parakkadavu in my name for the
period 2024-25 dated 11.11.2024
Exhibit R5(e) True copy of the counter affidavit filed by
the petitioner herein, in WP(C) No.2310 of
2023 without documents
Exhibit R5(f) True copy of the settlement register dated
nil, of the Parakadavu Village
Exhibit R5(g) True copy of the Plaint in OS No.58 of 2025
before the Munsiff court, Aluva
Exhibit R5(h) True copy of the Commission Report dated
13.02.2025 in I.A No. 2 of 2025 in OS No.58
of 2025 before the Munsiff court, Aluva
