Sree Kanjiramattom Mahadeva Temple ... vs The State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2024

[Cites 30, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Sree Kanjiramattom Mahadeva Temple ... vs The State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2024

The 1st petitioner is the Bharana Samithi of Sree Kanjiramattom Mahadeva Temple, the 2nd petitioner is the deity of that temple, represented by a devotee, and the 3rd petitioner is a member of Medanganal Mana, which is stated to have the ooralan/ooranma right of that temple. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the property having an extent of 3.69 Acres in Survey No.283/6 of the Todupuzha Village, which belongs to the deity of Sree Kanjiramattom Mahadeva Temple is a land exempted from the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in view of the provisions under Section 3(1)(x) of that Act over which the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction and consequently Exts.P5 to P8 purchase certificates issued in respect of that property are liable to be quashed. The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the Revenue officials to make necessary corrections in the property covered by Exts.P5 to P8 purchase certificates, which are presently in the name of respondents 7 to 9, and include the name of the Devaswom in all Revenue Records and for other consequential reliefs, including a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd 4 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 respondent District Collector to protect all assets belonging to Kanjiramattom Sree Mahadeva Temple as that of the Devaswom and its authorities, within a reasonable time frame.

2. On 03.03.2023, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 5. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 6 to 8, returnable within three weeks.

3. Respondents 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit dated 31.05.2023, producing therewith Ext.R6(a) order dated 26.09.1974 of the Special Land Tribunal, Kottayam, in S.M.No.22 of 1975 in A.P.No.169 of 1971. The 8th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit dated 05.02.2024, wherein it is stated that he does not have a claim of title or possession over the land having an extent of 3.69 Acres comprised in Survey No.283/6 in Thodupuzha Village, which is the subject matter of this writ petition.

4. In the counter affidavit dated 31.05.2023 filed by respondents 6 and 7, it is stated as follows;

"4. The Sree Mahadeva Temple, Kanjiramattom is not under the administration or supervision of the Travancore Devaswom Board or any authority under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1950. The 5 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 administration and management of the temple is apparently in private hands. The Petitioners are not entitled to invoke the public law remedy. Any grievance in regard to the alleged assets or properties of the Devaswom. Temple or deity has to be raised as private law remedy. The remedy, if at all, lies before the Civil Court and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ Petition is liable to fail on this sole ground.

5. Petitioner No.1 has no legal status or personality justifying an approach to this Hon'ble Court. Shri T.S. Rajan is not entitled in law or on facts to represent the deity of the Sree Mahadeva, Temple, Kanjiramattom. Petitioner No.3 has no locus-standiior authority to approach this Hon'ble Court by filing the above Writ Petition and seek the reliefs prayed for. The Writ Petition is an abuse of the legal process of this Hon'ble court.

6. At the outset it may be stated that we, Respondent No.6 and 7 herein, are concerned only with the property covered by Ext.P5 purchase certificate. The properties covered by Exts.P6, 7 and 8 are other persons. They are not made parties to the case. The attempt to coerce us into a settlement by using litigation as a weapon of oppression is evident. The Writ Petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and filed malafide.

7. The Purchase Certificates sought to be quashed were issued in the year 1977 after following the procedure prescribed in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter 'KLR Act' for short). The notice of the proceedings was duly issued to the Kanjiramattom Devaswom Thodupuzha. The landlord's right was ordered to be assigned in favour of the cultivating tenants by orders passed in 1974. After payment of purchase price, the purchase certificates were issued in 1977.

8. Through Ext.P5 purchase certificate, the right, title and interest in respect of 1.10 acres comprised in Sy.No. 283/6 in Thodupuzha village was assigned in favour of the then cultivating tenant Sri.Ouseph John, Pulimoottil, Respondent No.7 herein. The Kanjiramatam Devaswom was the Respondent 6 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 in the case and had been duly served. True copy of the order dated 26.09.1974 in S.M. No.22 of 1975 on the file of the Special Land Tribunal, Kottayam is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a).

9. An order of the nature of Exhibit R6(a) is appealable under Section 102 of the KLR Act. The appeal period expired in 1974 itself. The filing of Writ Petition at this distant point of time is an abuse of the process of court. The proceedings before a statutory tribunal conferred with exclusive jurisdiction in the matter cannot be nullified by a collateral challenge in a Writ Petition. The presumption available to us under Section 72 K of the Act has not been rebutted. That the properties were held by us for long is well known as a fact. After a lapse of 45 years, the Writ Petition is filed challenging the purchase certificates.

10. The Writ Petition is filed on a mis-conception in regard to the scope and application of Section 3(1)(x) of the KLR Act. The exemption under the KLR Act is only in respect of the sites, tanks and premises of any temple, mosque or church. The Kanjiramattom Mahadeva Temple is located about 3 Kilometers from the properties covered by the purchase certificates. There are public roads, including State highway and Thodupuzha River flowing in between the property and the temple., There is no site of any temple involved. Hence, the exemption provision has no application to the instant case.

11. It is submitted that the properties are outstanding on tenancy right and was in the possession of tenants from 1952. In any view of the matter there are disputed questions of facts and records which cannot be adjudicated in these proceedings. Vague allegations of lack of jurisdiction and fraud will not enable the Petitioners to get over the finality attached to the judicial proceedings.

12. The averments in paragraphs 1 to 4 of the Writ Petition are not correct and hence denied. The Petitioners have misconstrued the scope of the exemption provisions of the KLR 7 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 Act. The officials of the temple are well aware of the peaceful and continuous possession and enjoyment of the properties of these Respondents since 1952. Despite having notice of the preliminary findings of the Revenue Inspector in S.M. Proceedings No. 22 of 1975 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Kottayam, that these Respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the property in question, the then persons in management did not file any objection to the same. The finality and presumption attached to the proceedings cannot be collaterally impugned by collateral proceedings of this nature.

13. The averments in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Writ Petition are not correct and are denied. The allegations have been made without perusing the records which culminated in Ext.P5 certificate of purchase. The representatives of the temple were parties to the Suo Motu proceedings and as stated in the earlier paragraph, the preliminary findings of the Revenue Inspector were not objected to by them. There was no dispute on the tenancy right.

14. The Petitioners have laid a highly belated challenge by making vague allegations of lack of jurisdiction of the Land Tribunal, misconstruing the scope of the provisions pertaining to the exemption under Section 3 of the KLR Act. There is no merit in the grounds. The above Writ Petition is only an attempt to stake claim over the properties owned by us."

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 8th respondent.

6. 'Deva' means God and 'swom' means ownership in Sanskrit and the term 'Devaswom' denotes the property of God 8 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 in common parlance. See: Prayar Gopalakrishnan and another v. State of Kerala and others [2018 (1) KHC 536].

7. 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 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.

8. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front 9 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 06.07.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy.No.1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy.No.1042/2) to Respondents 3 to 5. The Board Resolution dated 29.08.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy.No.1043 is already in the possession of the temple. Before the Apex Court, respondents 3 and 4 contended that the settlement in the suit (O.S.No.399 of 1998) was validly arrived at between them (the plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (the defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duly passed a resolution to settle the suit. It was further contended that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. They relied on the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based 10 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 was not lawful. The Apex Court held that, the bar contained in Order XXIII, Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered with lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit, cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by the order dated 09.09.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy.No.1042/2 immediately from Respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No.3 of 1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with Respondents 2 and 3, giving up the right, title and interest in Sy.No.1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. The Apex Court concluded that, viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

9. 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 11 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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, 1957 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.

10. 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 12 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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 13 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 contentions 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 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.

11. 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 14 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 the said circumstances, the properties of the Devaswom, if at all encroached by anybody and if any assignment/conveyance has been effected without the 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.

12. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin 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 in 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, there is a duty cast upon the Court 15 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 to take every step to ensure that the property of the deity is protected.

13. 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 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 16 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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 17 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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 18 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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 19 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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.

W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022

14. In Jayaprakashan K. [2023 (3) KHC SN 14] the Division Bench, on an analysis of the aforesaid provisions under 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 21 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022

55. The Land Tribunal shall issue 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 necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is based on a 22 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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 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 23 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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.

15. 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 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 24 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 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.

16. In case the petitioners have a case that Exts.P5 to P8 purchase certificates issued by the 5th respondent is in respect of an exempted land falling under Section 3(1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 or that those purchase certificates are not in accordance with law, it is for them to challenge the same before the Appellate Authority, by invoking the provisions under Section 102, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions. In 25 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 view of the statutory remedy provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition by relegating the petitioners to the Appellate Authority under Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, to challenge Exts.P5 to P8 purchase certificates.

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

G. GIRISH, JUDGE ded 26 W.P.(C)No.32560 of 2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32560/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWERS PROVIDED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA AS PERTAINING TO THE KANJIRAMATTOM DEVASWOM DATED 12.10.21.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OLD SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED NIL Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LITHO SKETCH DENOTING THE LAND BELONGING TO THE DEVASWOM AS PROVIDED DATED NIL. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT DATED NIL.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 9.3.77 BEARING NO 22/73BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS -5, KOTTAYAM. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 10.3.77 BEARING NO 21/73 OF THE SPECIAL LAND TRIBUNAL, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 10.3.77 BEARING NO 21/73 OF THE SPECIAL LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 9.3.77 BEARING NO 15/73 OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 25.4.16 ISSUED BY THE THODUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE JOHN, S/O OUSEPH, PULIMOOTIL HOUSE WITH RECEIPT NO: 4296947 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 25.4.16 BY THE THODUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE JOHN, S/O OUSEPH, PULIMOOTIL HOUSE. WITH RECEIPT NO: 4296946 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 15.12.16 BY THE THODUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE ROY JOHN, S/O JOHN, PULIMOOTIL HOUSE.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R6(a) True copy of the order dated 26.09.1974 in S.M. No.22/75 in A.P No. 169/71 on the file of the Special Land Tribunal, Kottayam together with its typed copy Delay Petition Verified application seeking condonation of delay in filing counter-affidavit

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court