Kerala High Court
*Substituted(Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi ... vs The District Collector on 21 May, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2025 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C)NO.33805 OF 2018
PETITIONER
*SUBSTITUTED(SREE MARUTHI BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE
REPRESENTED BY ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE:
RAYIRAMKANDATH JANARDHANAN NAIR, S/O.LATE GOPALAN
NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS, VILAYANNOOR, PALAKKAD-
678671, THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:
ARAVINDAN, S/O.RAYIRAMKANDATH KAMAKSHI AMMA, AGED
60 YEARS, VILAYANNOOR, PALAKKAD -678671).
SREE MARUTHI BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE REPRESENTED BY ITS
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE:RAYIRAMKANDATH KARU-
NAKARANKUTTY, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 78 YEARS,
VILAYANNOOR, PALAKKAD- 678671.
(PETITIONER SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER DATED
21/05/2025 IN IA/1/2020 IN WP(C)No.33805/2018)
BY ADV MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
PALAKKAD- 678001
2 THE TAHSILDAR
ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD- 678 541
2
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THENKURISSI-II VILLAGE, PALAKKAD- 678 671
4 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DE-
PARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
5 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, PALAKKAD,PIN- 678001
6 PRESIDENT,
MARUTHI BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE COMMITTEE, VILAYANNUR,
PALAKKAD- 678 671
7 THE MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX,
ERANJHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673003
8 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, OFFICE OF THE MALABAR
DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERANJHIPALAM,
KOZHIKODE-673003 (ADDL R 7 AND R8 SUO MOTU IM-
PLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/05/2025 IN WP(C)
33805/2018)
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD
SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. S. RAJMOHAN, SR. GP; SMT. R. RANJANIE,SC,
MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 21.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOL-
LOWING:
3
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
JUDGMENT
P.V. Balakrishnan, J
The petitioner, Sree Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple,
represented through its hereditary trustee, has filed the above
writ petition seeking the following reliefs;
"i) To call for the entire records culminating in Ext.P7 order
and to quash the same;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ order or direction, directing the respondent No.3 to
accept the basic tax of the properties covered by Exhibits
P1, P2,P3 & P4 along with arrears of basic tax from the
petitioner."
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the temple
and its properties belonged to Rayiramkandath Tarward and are
under the management of the petitioner as the hereditary trustee.
The basic tax of the properties belonging to the temple were paid
by the manager of the family from time to time. During 1996-97,
some disputes occurred in respect of the rights of the property
and the management of the temple and the basic tax could not be
paid for few years. Subsequently, when the 3rd respondent
refused to accept the basic tax, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5
application dated 20.02.2017 before the 3rd respondent
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
requesting to accept the basic tax of the properties. Since the
respondent kept idle, the petitioner preferred W.P(C) No.19987 of
2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 29.01.2018 directing
the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner and
pass appropriate orders within a time frame. Thereafter, the 3rd
respondent rejected the request as per Ext.P7 order dated
12.07.2018 stating that unless an Administrative Officer is
appointed for the temple by Malabar Devaswom Board, the land
tax cannot be accepted from the hereditary trustee. It was also
stated that the temple and its properties have been taken over by
the HR & CE, Department as per the order in O.A.No.18 of 1983
dated 04.12.1985 (Ext.P9). O.A.No.18 of 1983 was only a
proceeding in which the temple was declared as a public temple
and in the order it is specifically recorded that the properties of
the temple are in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner. The petitioner is in possession of the properties as the
hereditary trustee and the Devaswom Board has no right/title over
the properties of the religious institution.
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
3. The 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit challenging
the entitlement of the petitioner to remit the basic tax. It is con-
tended that the trusteeship of the temple is vested with Kuthira-
vattom Swaroopam and since they found it difficult to manage the
affairs of the temple, a committee comprising of the devotees and
elected from among them was constituted. The members of
Rayiramkandath family, to which the petitioner belongs, is only
having some customary rights in the temple. In the order passed
in O.A.No.18 of 1983, it is clearly stated that the petitioner will
have to establish his right as hereditary trustee by preferring
appropriate proceedings, which he has not done. The day today
affairs of the temple are being controlled by the Committee with
the prior permission of the Malabar Devaswom Board and neither
the petitioner nor any other members of his family have taken any
interest in the affairs of the temple. The petitioner's name do not
find a place in the Adangal extract and the petitioner is trying to
establish title over the property without resorting to a civil suit.
4. The 5th respondent filed a statement dated 22.10.2019,
wherein, it is contended as follows:
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
"2. It is submitted that the petitioner temple is a religious
institution coming under the purview of HR & CE Act,1951,
consequently under the supervisory control of Malabar
Devaswom Board. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition
earlier, as W.P.( C) No.7369 of 2019, apprehending the
appointment of Non-Hereditary Trustees behind the back of
the Hereditary Trustees. The Hon'ble Court without expressing
on the merits of the claim mooted by the petitioner, for the
hereditary trusteeship, disposed off the writ petition, vide
judgment dated 18.03.2019, leaving the opportunity to the
petitioner, to raise the claim of Hereditary Trusteeship before
the competent authorities in accordance with law. So much so,
the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner of the
Malabar Devaswom Board, to decide the right for hereditary
trusteeship of the temple, in accordance with the HR & CE Act,
1951. Section 57(b) of the Act empowers the Deputy
Commissioner to inquire into and decide the matters regarding
whether a trustee hold or held office of the temple hereditary
trustee.
3. The petitioner Temple is a public religious institution brought
under the purview of the Act under Section 57(a) of the Act. It
was contended by the Malabar Devaswom Board in
W.P.(C)No.7369 of 2019 that the partition deed which was
produced in the said writ does not indicate that the petitioner
is a Hereditary Trustee as defined under the Act. The Trustee
of a religious institution is clearly defined in the Act that one
who got it, by succession, to whose office it devolves by
hereditary right or is regulated by usage, or is specifically
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
provided for by the founder, so long as such scheme of
succession in force. Hence, the Hereditary Trusteeship of the
temple has not yet been regulated by any enquiry or order. It
is to be decided by acting under Section 57(b) of the Act and
hence a notice Vide No.A1-714/14/M.D.B. dated 05/09/2019
has been issued under Section 57(b) by the Deputy
Commissioner inviting objections or opinions from devotees, in
regard of appointment of the petitioner as hereditary trustee
of the temple. In response of the notice, some objections was
received from certain corners against his claim for Trusteeship.
The petitioner has produced a consent letter from one
Sri.R.Sukumaran Nair who had claimed himself as the de-facto
Hereditary Trustee after Sri.Janardhanan Nair, the former
trustee as claimed in the letter who passes the age of 90,
authorizing the Trusteeship to the petitioner. In the said letter,
it states that the petitioner is the son of younger sister of
Sri.Sukumaran Nair. So the veracity of lineage also to be
verified recordically on proceeding with Section 57(b), so as to
avoid further unnecessary litigation in regard of Hereditary
right.
4. It is respectfully submitted that the proceedings under
Section 57(b) in deciding the right of the petitioner for
Hereditary Trusteeship is progressing in this office. So, at this
juncture, such a writ petition itself is irrelevant and
unnecessary. So much so, no question arises as to impleading
the petitioner in the impleading petition, Mr.Aravindan as
additional 2nd petitioner. Also, Sri.Janardhanan Nair, the
said Hereditary Trustee expired on 23.12.2018, and not been
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
approved as Trustee so far. So, it is to be decided by
conducting enquiry under Section 57 (b)."
5. During the pendency of this writ petition,
Sri.Rayiramkandath Janardhanan Nair, who has filed this writ
petition claiming as hereditary trustee of the temple, died on
24.12.2018 and the Power of Attorney holder Sri.Aravindan being
the senior most male member of the Tarawad was impleaded as
the hereditary trustee. Later, the said Aravindan also died on
24.12.2019 and as per order in I.A.No.1 of 2020 dated today,
Sri.Rayiramkandath Karunakarankutty was impleaded as
additional petitioner No.2 without prejudice to the rival
contentions raised as to his eligibility of being a hereditary trustee.
6. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1
to 4, the Standing Counsel for respondents 5, 7 & 8 and the
learned Counsel for the 6th respondent.
7. As stated earlier, this writ petition has been filed for
setting aside Ext.P7 order and for a direction to respondent No.3
to accept the basic tax of the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P4
documents. The petitioner claims to be the hereditary trustee of
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
the temple, which is vehemently disputed by respondent Nos. 5 &
6. The statement filed by the 5th respondent would go to show that
the original petitioner (Janardhanan Nair) has already approached
the Deputy Commissioner of Malabar Devaswom Board
(8threspondent) to decide the right for hereditary trusteeship of
the temple in accordance with the HR & CE Act, 1951 and that the
same is still pending consideration. It is also submitted by the
learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board that the said
proceedings, which is numbered as O.A.No.9 of 2019, is even now
pending on the files of the 8th respondent. It cannot be disputed
that as per Section 57(b) of the Madras Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, the Deputy Commissioner is
the authority to enquire into and decide whether a trustee holds
or held office as a hereditary trustee in a temple. Since O.A.No.9
of 2019 is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner
(8threspondent), we are of the view that the right of the petitioner
to remit the basic tax will be dependent upon the result in it. If, in
any case, the petitioner is found to be hereditary trustee of Sree
Maruthi Bhagavathi Temple, it would be obligatory upon the 3rd
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
respondent to accept the basic tax for the temple properties along
with arrears from the petitioner.
With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. It
is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion, on the
claims made by the petitioner and the contesting respondents in
this writ petition, and the Deputy Commissioner (8th respondent)
shall decide O.A.No.9 of 2019 untrammeled by any observations
made in the judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
dpk
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.33805/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
REGD DEED OF PARTITION NO.955 OF 1910,
S.R.O. KUZHALMANNAM
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS DATED
05-11-1980 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF HE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
20-10-1996 ISSUED BY THE 3NRD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADANGAL EXTRACT OF RE-
SURVEY NO.93/3 OF THENKURISSI-2 VILLAGE
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20-02-
2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29-01-
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-07-2018
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26-06-2-18
SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT HEREIN
BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT,WITH COVERING
LETTER
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 04-12-1985 IN
O.A.NO.18 1993 OF THE DEPUTY COMMIS-
SIONER, H.R.& C.E.(ADMINISTRATION) DE-
PARTMENT, KOZHIKODE
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.12.85 IN
O.A. NO.18/83 OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER H.R.
AND C.E.
2025:KER:34965
WP (C) NO. 33805 OF 2018
EXHIBIT R6 B TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 45/03
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE
JUDGE PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT R6 C TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2015
IN O.S. NO. 87/ 2014 ON THE FILE OF TH3
MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR.
EXHIBIT R6 D TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF
THE PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE TEMPLE
