V.D.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

V.D.Thankachan vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2025

These two writ petitions are filed challenging the order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. WP(C) No.14200/2024 is filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board. WP(C) No.20996/2024 is filed by one V. D Thankachan. The issues involved in both these Writ Petitions are almost identical and therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petitions by a common judgment.

2. WP(C) No.14200/2024 is taken as the lead case. The parties and the exhibits are hereinafter referred to as stated in WP(C) No.14200/2024 for the sake of convenience.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions are as follows:

The writ petitioner in WP(C).No.14200/2024, Cochin Devaswom Board states that Cochin Devaswom Board is constituted under Section 62 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('the TCHRI Act' for the sake of brevity). All immovable properties vested in the Cochin Devaswom Board under sub-section (1) of Section 62 of the TCHRI Act shall be dealt as Devaswom properties. By virtue of Section 62A of the TCHRI Act, the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 were made 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 6 applicable to Devaswom lands, as in the case of government land.

4. The Chirangara Bhagavathy-Vishnu Temple is situated at Chirangara Kizhakkumuri in Thrissur district and is administered by the Cochin Devaswom Board. According to Ext. P1, Thanathu Register, the temple holds properties including the temple pond located in survey numbers 401, 403, 405, 406, 407, and 424 in Kizhakkumuri Village, Mukundapuram Taluk. A portion of these properties was acquired for the widening of the National Highways under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.

5. It is further stated that vide award No.127/2015 in LAC 190/07 dated 13.05.2015, the petitioner Cochin Devaswom Board received enhanced arbitration compensation from National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) on 19.12.2015.

6. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 14200/2024 contends that no compensation has been paid to them for the properties comprised in survey Nos. 401/4B and 403/2 of Kizhakkumuri Village, which were acquired by the National Highways Authority. These properties are recorded in the revenue records as 'Chirangara Chira Poramboke'. The Temple Advisory Committee of Chirangara Sree Mahavishnu Temple submitted a petition before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards, complaining that no compensation had been paid to them by the NHAI. Based on the report of the learned Ombudsman, this Court registered DBP 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 7 No. 29/2017 7. As per the order dated 04.12.2017 in the said DBP, this Court directed the competent authority to take a decision on the application filed by the petitioner seeking compensation for the portion of temple chira which was acquired for the widening of the National Highway.

8. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent, Sri. Thankachan, approached the 2nd respondent, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and submitted Ext.P3 petition. In Ext.P3 petition, it is stated that the Cochin Devaswom Board has constructed a compound wall and gate unauthorisedly and sought for its demolition. Likewise, it is averred in the petition that the pond is illegally possessed by the temple authorities. The 4th respondent sought a further relief that the pond be opened to the public. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, the 2nd respondent, has issued Ext.P7 order dated 19.10.2023. In the said order, it is mentioned that the Devaswom Board has admitted that the Chiangara Chira is a public pond and therefore, the Board shall not obstruct the public from taking bath in the pond. It is further directed that the 4th respondent/petitioner in WP(C) No.20996/2024 can approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions if the pond or street is blocked .

9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, the Cochin Devaswom Board has filed 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 8 WP(C) No.14200/2024 claiming the following relief:

"Call for the records relating to Ext.P7 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction."

10. Sri.V. D. Thanchan, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.20996/2024 approached this court claiming the following reliefs.

"i. call for records leading to Ext. P14 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Ext. P14 in so far as it does not grant reliefs to the petitioner as praved for in Ext. P1 and as applicable under Sec. 271Q of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.

ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to proceed further on Ext. P7 and demolish the illegal construction made by the 4th respondent by constructing COURT OF compound wall without any building permit especially since the construction is made in government poramboke land, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iii, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Ombudsman to reconsider Ext.Pl afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

11. The learned Standing counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board, Sri. K. P. Sudheer submitted that the pond is the property of the temple as per Ext.P1 'Thanathu Register' and the public has no right in the temple pond.

                                                                        2025:KER:76901
W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024
                                          9

He further submitted that, they have not constructed the compound wall to block the pond, but effected necessary repairs of the compound wall so as to protect the property of the deity from encroachment.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 4th respondent/petitioner in WP(C) 20996 of 2024 would contend that the pond is in 'revenue poramboke' and therefore, Cochin Devaswom Board has no right over the Chirangara Chira. The learned counsel for the Koratty Grama Panchayath would also contend that the pond is a revenue poramboke.

13. The 4th respondent/the petitioner in WPC 20996/2024 filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the claim of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Likewise, Cochin Devaswom Board has also filed a detailed reply affidavit in WPC 20996/2024.

14. The learned standing counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board would submit that the impugned order of the Ombudsman is illegal, ultra vires and beyond the scope of its authority. The learned counsel submits that under Section 271 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the Ombudsman has no power or jurisdiction.

15. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board has placed reliance on the dictum in Chandrakumar v. Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions (2024 (1) KHC 552). In Chandrakumar (supra), this Court held that when a private dispute is raised, 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 10 the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to decide such dispute and must relegate the parties to resolve the dispute through another available forum.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment in Chandran v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2003 KHC

442). In Chandran (supra) it was observed that a pond standing in front of the temple is a place of religious sanctity. The pond would form part of a temple.

17. The learned Standing Counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to Rule 4 of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 says as follows:

"No person shall enter into premises of any place of public worship unless he has had a bath and wears clean clothes or such materials and in such manner as is customary, in such place of public worship. No person shall enter a place of public worship with any footwear"

18. At this juncture, it may be useful to refer to the functions and powers of Ombudsman for Local Self Government. Chapter XXV B of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act states about the provisions relating to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.

19. The functions of Ombudsman are provided under Section 271(J) of the said Act which reads as follows:

2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 11 S.271 J. Functions of the Ombudsman. -

(1) The Ombudsman shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely: -

(i) Investigate into any allegation contained in a complaint or on a reference from Government, or that has come to the notice of the Ombudsman;

(ii) Enquire into any complaint in which corruption or maladministration of a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution is alleged;

(iii) Pass an order on the allegation in the following manner, namely: -

(a) Where the irregularity involves a criminal offence committed by a public servant, the mater shall be referred to the appropriate authority for investigation.

(b) Where the irregularity causes loss or inconvenience to a citizen, direct the Local Self Government Institution to give him compensation and to reimburse the loss from the person responsible for the irregularity;

(c) Where the irregularity involves loss or waste or misuse of the fund of the Local Self Government Institution, realise such loss from those who are responsible for such irregularity, and

(d) Where the irregularity is due to omission or inaction cause to supply the omission and to rectify the mistake.

(2) In addition to the functions enumerated in sub-section (1), the Ombudsman may pass interim order restraining the Local Self Government Institution from doing anything detrimental to the interest of the complainant if it is satisfied that much loss or injury will be caused to the complainant due to the alleged act.

(3) The Ombudsman may by order, impose penalty in addition to compensation if it is of opinion that the irregularity involves corrupt practice for personal gain.

2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 12 S.271M. Investigation. -

(1) The Ombudsman may, according to the provisions of this Act, enquire into any complaint filed before it under this Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act the Government may refer any allegation of corruption or maladministration against a Local Self Government Institution or a public servant which is within its knowledge or brought to its notice, to the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman shall enquire into it as if it was a complaint filed under this Act.

(3) The Ombudsman may, on receipt of a complaint, conduct an investigation in the matter and where there is prima facie case it may conduct a detailed enquiry.

(4) The Ombudsman shall not enquire into matters relating to, -

(a) any matter in respect of which a formal and public enquiry has been ordered by Government;

(b) any matter in respect of which a remedy is available from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271S;

(c) any matter in respect of which an enquiry has been ordered under the Commission of Inquiries Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) or any matter pending before a court;

(d) any complaint filed after the expiry of three years from the date on which the matter complain against have taken place:

Provided that the Ombudsman may entertain such complaint if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient reason for not filing the complaint within the specified period."



                                                                 2025:KER:76901
W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024
                                       13

20. In Mayor of Kochi v. Ombudsman for Self Government Institutions (ILR 2010(4) Ker 291), this Court opined that an Ombudsman appointed under Chapter XXVB of the Kerala Panchayath Act can exercise only those powers which are conferred on him under the Act and not otherwise.

21. On going through Section 271(J) of the Panchayat Raj Act, the power of Ombudsman is only to investigate the complaint of corruption or maladministration of a public servant of a Local Self Government Institution. The Ombudsman cannot pass orders, as if it were a civil court nor can it adjudicate on a private dispute.

22. In the instant case, Cochin Devaswom Board contends that Chirangara Chira is a temple pond as per their thanathu register. However, 3rd respondent Koratty panchayath claims that the pond in question is in revenue poramboke and Cochin Devaswom Board has no right over it.

23. On going through the pleadings and the materials placed on record, it could be seen that the ownership of the pond is essentially a private dispute. It has nothing to do with the corruption or maladministration of a public servant or a Local Self Government Institution.

24. We have no doubt in our minds that the Ombudsman has exceeded its power by issuing a positive direction that the Cochin Devaswom Board shall not obstruct the public from taking bath in the pond. We hold that 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 14 Ext.P7 order is illegal, ultra vires and beyond the scope of the powers conferred upon the Ombudsman. Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman is hereby set aside.

25. The petitioner in WP(C).No.20996/2024 has also claimed a relief of writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Koratty Grama Panchayath to demolish the illegal construction of compound wall and gate by the Cochin Devaswom Board. Even according to the 4th respondent/ the petitioner in WP(C) No. 20996 of 2024 the compound wall was constructed in the year 2013. The petitioner approached this Court after the lapse of about 12 years, challenging the construction. The claim of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation. Moreover, the writ courts, invoking its equitable jurisdiction, are not expected to interfere in disputed questions of facts.

26. In New Okhla Industrial Development Authority v. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, [(2006) 9 SCC 524], the Hon'ble Apex court held that Under Article 226, the High Court has the power to decide both factual and legal issues. However, if complex factual questions arise that require oral evidence, the High Court will generally decline to decide the writ petition and suggest a more appropriate forum. The Court's jurisdiction is not lost simply because factual issues exist, but deciding whether to proceed is a matter of judicial discretion guided by established principles. Relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 15

13.In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. When the petition raises complex questions of fact which may, for their determination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that account the High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition.

14. Thus, a High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the petitioner's right, question of fact may fall to be determined. Ultimately, the question is one of discretion which is to be exercised in conformity with judicial principles.

27. In Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Bharati Industries, [(2005) 12 SCC 725], the Apex Court held that where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires thorough proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition.

28. The petitioner in WP(C) No.20996/2024 also seeks an order for reconsideration of Ext.P1 complaint by the Ombudsman. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in W.P(C).No.20996/2024 cannot be granted.

                                                                      2025:KER:76901
W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024
                                             16                    

       In the result,
               (1)      WP(C) No.14200/2024 filed by the Cochin
                         Devaswom Board is allowed.
               (2)      Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self

Government Institutions dated 19.10.2023 is hereby set aside.

(3) WP(C).No.20996/2024 is devoid of any merit and hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE Sbna/ 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 17 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14200/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P 1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANATHU REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE DEVASWOM EXHIBIT P 2 COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/07/2023 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 19020 OF 2023 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P 3 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11/09/2023 IN PETITION NO. 1479/16 ALONG WITH THE INCOMPLETE PETITION FORWARDED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER IN WHICH EXT.P3 WAS FORWARDED.

EXHIBIT P 5 TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 16/10/2023 WITHOUT THE EXHIBITS.

EXHIBIT P 6 TRUE COPY OFOrissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. v.

Bharati Industries, (2005) 12 SCC 725 NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. R 1446/12 DATED 17/02/2012 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P 7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/10/2023 IN PETITION NO. 1479/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R4 (A) TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE KIZHAKKUMMURI EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NO.E2-847/04 (VOL2) DATED 03.08.2016 EXHIBIT R4(D) PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL ERECTION OF GATE AND BOARD EXHIBIT R4 (F) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.E-6775/13 DATED 11.10.2013 TO STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORATTY POLICE STATION EXHIBIT R4 (G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E-6775/13 DATED 15.11.2013 OF SECRETARY OF KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT R4 (H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.E-5444/16 DATED 06.09.2016 OF THE SECRETARY KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT R4 (I) TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN OP.NO.1479/16 DATED 13.03.2017 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 18 EXHIBIT R4 (J) TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN OP.NO.1479/2016 DATED 15.03.2017 EXHIBIT R4 (E) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.E-6775/13 DATED 11.10.2013 OF THE SECRETARY KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT R4 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY V.O.JOHNSON BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MI DIVISION CHALAKUDY 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 19 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20996/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM A DATED 26.12.2016 WITHOUT ANNEXURES EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER OBTAINED FROM THE STATE ARCHIVES ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE KIZHAKKUMMURI EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY V.O.JOHNSON BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, M.I DIVISION CHALAKUDY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DATED 03.08.2016 EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL ERECTION OF GATE AND BOARD EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.10.2013 OF THE SECRETARY KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11.10.2013 TO STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORATTY POLICE STATION EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.11.2013 OF SECRETARY OF KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.09.2016 OF THE SECRETARY KORATTY GRAMAPANCHAYATH EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13.03.2017 IN OP.NO.1479/2016 FILED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 15.03.2017 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER TO EXT.P1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.02.2018 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN COMPLAINT NO.1479/2016 DATED 19.10.2023 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 17.02.2012 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-190/07 DATED 2025:KER:76901 W.P(C).Nos.14200 and 20996 of 2024 20 24.11.2023 OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R 4 ( A ) TRUE COPY REPLY LETTER NO.R. 14091/13 DATED 01/11/13 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R 4 ( B ) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.R. 14091/13 DATED 09/12/13 ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, CDB TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R 4 ( C ) TRUE COPY OF REPLY BEARING NO. R. 8735/16 DATED 23.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT R 4 ( E ) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 381/22 DATED 10.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKUMURI TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R 4 ( D ) TRUE COPY OF REPLY BEARING NO. B1- 5122/16 DATED 14.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO ONE SAJAN K.K. ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP.NO.8519/2006 DATED 31.01.2018 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 KHC 4091 (JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS) EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF DECISION REPORTED IN 2024 (4) KHC 1 (PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD V. STATE OF KERALA) EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH DATED 30.11.2023 EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF FORM NO. A COMPLAINT ALONG WITH THE GIST OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1479/16 MENTIONED IN CLAUSE 5 AS ANNEXURE FILED BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE A REGISTER ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE DATED NIL

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court