Travancore Devaswom Board vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2025

[Cites 23, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Travancore Devaswom Board vs State Of Kerala on 14 March, 2025

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

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court