Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024

[Cites 26, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Suo Motu vs State Of Kerala on 28 May, 2024

This DBP is registered based on a complaint dated nil made by a devotee, by name, M. Rajappan, pointing out encroachments in the property of Thiru Ayini Siva Temple, a temple under the management of the 2nd respondent Cochin Devaswom Board, by Maradu Municipality and a resident of that locality.

2. On 06.10.2023, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the 1st respondent and also for the additional 6th respondent Station House Officer, Maradu Police Station. The learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board entered appearance for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Maradu Municipality entered appearance for the 5th respondent. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar, this Court passed an interim order restraining the 5th respondent Municipality from constructing road in the Devaswom land of Thiru Ayini Siva Temple, until further orders. The respective Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board and the Maradu Municipality were directed to DBP.No.99/2023 4 get instructions and file affidavits and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board was directed to furnish the address of the alleged encroacher referred to in the complaint, so as to implead him as an additional respondent.

3. By the order dated 05.12.2023, the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy), Cochin Devaswom Board was suo motu impleaded as additional 7th respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board entered appearance for the 7th respondent.

4. On 09.01.2024, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board submitted that, survey of the Devaswom land by the additional 7th respondent Special Tahsildar is yet to take place. Thereafter, on 26.02.2024, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the survey is being conducted by the additional 7th respondent.

5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for 1st respondent and additional respondents 6 and 7, the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board for respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Maradu Municipality for the 5th respondent.

DBP.No.99/2023

6. The Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, was made for making provisions for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and of other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds. Chapter VIII of the Act deals with Cochin Devaswom Board. Section 62 of the Act deals with vesting of administration in the Board. As per sub-section (1) of Section 62, the administration of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions which were under the management of the Ruler of Cochin immediately prior to the first day of July, 1949 either under Section 50G of the Government of Cochin Act, XX of 1113, or under the provisions of the Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1 of 1081, and all their properties and funds and of the estates and all institutions under the management of the Devaswom Department of Cochin, shall vest in the Cochin Devaswom Board. As per sub-section (2) of Section 62, notwithstanding the provisions contained in subsection (1), the regulation and control of all rituals and ceremonies in the temple of Sree Poornathrayeesa at Trippunittura and in the Pazhayannur Bhagavathy temple at Pazhayannur shall continue to be DBP.No.99/2023 6 exercised as hitherto by the Ruler of Cochin.

7. Section 73A of the Act deals with duties of the Board. As per Section 73A, it shall be the duty of the Board to perform the functions enumerated in clauses (i) to (iv), namely, (i) to see that the regular traditional rites according to the practice prevalent in the religious institution are performed promptly; (ii) to monitor whether the administrative staff and employees and also the employees connected with religious rites are functioning properly; (iii) to ensure proper maintenance and upliftment of the Hindu Religious Institutions; (iv) to establish and maintain proper facilities in major temples for the devotees.

8. Section 74 of the Act deals with vesting of jurisdiction in the Board. As per Section 74, subject to the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62, all rights, authority and jurisdiction belonging to or exercised by the Ruler of Cochin prior to the 1 st day of July, 1949 in respect of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Institutions shall vest in and be exercised by the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 74 of the Act deals with superintendence and control by the Board. As per Section 64, the Board shall, subject to the provisions of Part II of the Act, exercise supervision and control over the acts and DBP.No.99/2023 7 proceedings of all officers and servants of the Board and of the Devaswom Department.

9. 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.

10. In A.A. Gopalakrishnan, on the facts of the case on hand, the Apex Court noticed that, when Respondents 3 to 5 DBP.No.99/2023 8 claimed ownership of Survey No.1043, which was the front 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 provisons of Order XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, DBP.No.99/2023 9 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 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.

DBP.No.99/2023

11. 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, 1957 viz. the powers of revision, the High Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parents 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.

12. In Mohanan Nair 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 DBP.No.99/2023 11 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 12 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 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.

13. In Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India [2018 SCC OnLine SC 667] - order dated 05.07.2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - the Apex Court noticed that the issue of difficulties faced DBP.No.99/2023 13 by the visitors, exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management, maintenance of hygiene, proper utilisation of offerings and protection of assets may require consideration with regard to all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and there is need to look into this aspect by the Central Government, apart from State Governments. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits a court also to issue direction for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, the Apex Court directed that, if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout the India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/ matter to any other court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary send a report to the High Court. The High Court will consider these aspects in public interest, in accordance with law, and issue such judicial directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation.

14. In Nandakumar v. District Collector and others DBP.No.99/2023 14 [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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 15 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 Payappar Sree Dharmasastha Temple A. Com. v. A.K. Joseph [(2009) 14 SCC 628] it was contended before the Apex Court that the Travancore Devaswom Board is a statutory body which came into being only by the Travancore- Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and before that, the Government and Devaswom were one and the same and there was no separate existence, and therefore, whatever order was passed by the Government prior to 1950 regarding the land in question, it was also binding upon the Board. It was also contended that Section 27 of the Act does not nullify any assignment by the Government before the Travancore Devaswom DBP.No.99/2023 16 Board came into existence. As per Section 27, which deals with Devaswom properties, immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as 'Devaswom Vaga' or 'Devaswom Poramboke' and such other Pandaravaga lands as are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after the 30th Meenam 1097 corresponding to 12.04.1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands. After perusing the provisions under Section 27, which deals with Devaswom properties, the Apex Court noticed that after coming into force of the Act of 1950 the administration of temples and all their properties and funds, except Sree Padmanabhaswami Temple got vested in the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is clearly mentioned in Section 27 that the immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom property, which is in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswom effective from 12.04.1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties. The Apex Court held that the interpretation given by the High Court, so far as Section 27 of the Act is concerned, was incorrect as the High Court totally DBP.No.99/2023 17 overlooked the fact that Section 27 of the Act stipulates that immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as 'Devaswom Vaga' or 'Devaswom Poramboke' after 12.04.1922 would be dealt with as Devaswom properties, whether or not the same Devaswom properties was the issue which was sought to be resolved and adjudicated by the High Court by looking into various documents which were placed on record.

17. 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 DBP.No.99/2023 18 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 19 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 20 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 21 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 22 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.

18. 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 DBP.No.99/2023 23 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 24 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 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, DBP.No.99/2023 25 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 26 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.

19. 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 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 DBP.No.99/2023 27 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.

20. During the course of arguments, it is submitted at the Bar that the survey conducted by the additional 7th respondent could not be completed, since he was on election duty. The learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the additional 7th respondent shall finalise the process of survey within a period of four months.

21. Having considered the materials on record and also the submission made at the Bar, this DBP is disposed of by directing the additional 7th respondent Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) to complete the survey of the Devaswom land of Thiru Ayini Siva Temple, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, taking note of the law laid down in DBP.No.99/2023 28 the decisions referred supra, with notice to the Cochin Devaswom Board, Maradu Municipality and the encroachers, if any, of that land. The interim order granted by this Court on 06.10.2023 shall continue till then.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE Sbna/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court