Kerala High Court
Sree Dharmashstha Temple Advisory ... vs State Of Kerala Rep. By Secretary To Govt on 3 October, 2018
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 7812 of 2011
PETITIONERS:
1 SREE DHARMASHSTHA TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
SASTHAMKOTTA,REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT,
M.V.ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, AGED 62, S/O VELU NAIR,
SREESAILAM, MANAKKARA, SASTHAMKOTTAH PO,
KOLLAM 690 521.
2 SREE DHARMASHASTHA TEMPLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
SASTHAMKOTTA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 47, S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI,
PERUMUTTAM VEEDU, PALLISSERIKKAL, SASTHAMKOTTAH PO,
KOLLAM 690 521.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM 691 001.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM 691 001.
4 THE TAHASILDAR, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM 691 001.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMKOTTAH, KOLLAM 690 521.
6 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
WPC 7812/11 2
7 R.CHANDRAMOHAN, S/O P.S.RAMAN PILLAI,
AGED 60, RESIDING AT T.C. 4/165/4, SARANYA MRA 8,
MARAPPALLAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
Impleaded as per order dated 14.3.2011 in IA 4528/11
R1 TO R5 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
SMT.BABITHA THAMBI
SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR
SRI.LEO GEORGE
SRI.M.SUNIL
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of 'Sree Dharmashastha Temple', Sasthamcotta impugning Exhibit P7 order of the fourth respondent and Exhibit P9 order of the third respondent, as per which a compound wall constructed by them enclosing 30.5 cents of land called the 'Thripadam' belonging to the Temple was directed to be demolished. The petitioner says that the directions in Exhibits P7 and P9 are untenable in law because the properties belong to the Temple, consequently being under the control of the Travancore Devaswom Board and therefore, that respondents 3 and 4 have no jurisdiction to order demolition of the WPC 7812/11 3 compound wall, which was constructed only for the purpose of securing and maintaining the properties belonging to the Temple.
2. Even though there are large volumes of pleadings and materials on record, by efflux of time most of the issues have now become unnecessary for our consideration. This is because, we notice that pending this writ petition, based on the several pleadings on record, a reference was made to the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards to look into this issue and to find out whether a via-media could be arrived at, so as to ensure that the properties of the Temple are sufficiently protected and the rival rights claimed by respondents 7 and 8, who were subsequently impleaded into the party array on the allegation that they are encroachers to the properties, would be amiably resolved.
3. The learned Ombudsman appears to have visited the premises and he has recommended to this Court to consider the applicability of Section 27 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and also the impact of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132/2011, produced as Annexure-B along with his report.
4. We notice from the pleadings on record that a suggestion was made by the seventh respondent in the form of a statement, wherein an alternative was proposed, that a way be given as access to his property WPC 7812/11 4 through the eastern side of the Temple properties, if their original request for access through the western side is not accepted. In answer to this, a statement was filed by the Board, wherein they say that a concession, by way of providing a pathway without any demand for compensation through the eastern boundary, will be sufficient for the use of the applicant (seventh respondent) and that this will be useful for the neighbouring house owners also. They, however, rejected the suggestion made by the seventh respondent for a pathway through the western side of the properties as being malafide and a copy of the resolution of the Board dated 01.04.2014 is produced as Exhibit R6(a).
5. We further notice that when this matter was considered by this Court on 11.04.2014, a submission was made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that it has considered the suggestions of the seventh respondent and have thereafter taken a decision to lay the pathway through the eastern side itself. This Court had, therefore, passed an order on 11.04.2014 directing the competent authority to file an affidavit furnishing the details. We, however, do not see any further developments in this matter and we do not find any further affidavit having been filed any of the parties.
6. When this matter was taken up today, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the seventh respondent submitted that even though this Court had recorded in the order dated 11.04.2014 that a WPC 7812/11 5 decision has already been taken by the Board to provide a pathway through the eastern side, no action has been taken on the ground level by the Board until now. He further says that if the suggestion is implemented by the Board, then the apprehension raised by the seventh respondent would, to a large extent, be allayed. He says that if such an access is given, then it would not even necessary to implement Exhibits P7 and P9 orders, since all that the seventh respondent wants is an access to his residential property, which has been blocked by the TAC, leading to issuance of Exhibits P7 and P9 orders.
7. Taking note of the afore submissions and in particular the fact that this Court has already recorded the Board's decision to provide a pathway through the eastern side, we order this writ petition directing the competent authority of the Devaswom Board to immediately take steps in furtherance of their decision to provide a suitable pathway through the eastern side, so that the seventh respondent can have access to his residential property. The Board shall mark this pathway strictly in terms of Exhibit R6(a) so that the seventh respondent can have a pathway of sufficient width, also taking note of the sketch prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Karunagappilly, produced on record as Exhibit R6(b).
8. Since this matter has been pending before this Court for the last more than seven years, we direct the competent authority to WPC 7812/11 6 implement the directions in this judgment as expeditiously as possible but not later than eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
9. Needless to say, the assessed expenditure for this purpose or such other commensurate enhancement in the same will have to be borne by the seventh respondent.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran, Judge tkv APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. P1 COPY OF THE PAGES FROM IYTHIHYAMALA EXT. P2 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PLACE 'THRIPADAM' EXT. P3 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.1993 EXT. P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.4.1994 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE SECRETARY TO SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DECVASWOM BOARD EXT. P5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 17.10.1995 EXT. P6 COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 7.8.1999 WPC 7812/11 7 EXT. P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 23.2.2011 EXT. P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 37535/2010 EXT. P9 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.2.2011 FILED BY ONE CHANDRAMOHAN TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2011 EXT. P10 COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF CIRCULAR DATED 10.4.1985 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
EXT. R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 15.9.1995 ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE AND SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KARUNAGAPPALLY ANNEXURE R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD DATED 1.4.2014 EXT. R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY ME TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTAH DATED 1.11.2010 EXT. R7(b)TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED TO ME BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTAH PURSUANT TO EXT.P1 REQUEST DATED 3.11.2010 EXT. R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF SASTHAMCOTTAH VILLAGE DATED NIL EXT. R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DATED 13.5.2002 EXT. R7(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPOUND WALL CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONERS EXT. R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE COMPOUND WALL OF THE PROPERTY OF THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT EXT. R7(g) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.8519/2006 DATED 29.9.2009 EXT. R7(h) TRUE COPY OF G.O.(Rt)NO.2657/2010 DATED 26.8.2010 WPC 7812/11 8 EXT. R7(i) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1132/2011 DATED 28.1.2011 EXT. R7(j) AN ESTIMATE PREPARED BY ONE SRI.N.RAVEENDRAN, RETIRED ENGINEER, HAVING REGISTRATION NO.1260/10/EB-78/KLM EXT. R7(k) A SKETCH SHOWING SEPARATELY THE DRIVE WAY SUGGESTED BY THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT THROUGH THE WESTERN EXTREMITY AS WELL AS THE MODIFICATIONS TO BE MADE IN EXT. R6(b) SKETCH /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE