Ajoy L.S vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 March, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ajoy L.S vs The Travancore Devaswom Board on 26 March, 2025

The petitioner, who is a devotee of Lord Krishna of Aranmula Parthasarathi Temple, which is a temple under the management of the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to protect 'Vilakkumadam Palace' as a historic monument and not to allow the reconstruction of the same or allow any new construction now attempted to be carried out by the 5th respondent Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram Samrakshana Samithi and the 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take immediate steps to recover possession of 163 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.228/19, 228/20, 228/21 of Aranmula Village which, according to the petitioner, originally belonged to the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board, by resorting to the provisions under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016

2025:KER:27480

2. On 13.12.2016, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board took notice for respondents 1 to 4. Notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 5 and 6. It was submitted at the Bar that Ext.P2 complaint filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before the learned Ombudsman for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. Awaiting the report of the learned Ombudsman, this Court granted an interim order directing respondents 5 and 6 to maintain status quo as on 13.12.2016 in respect of Vilakkumadom Palace, till further orders are passed in this writ petition.

3. The 5th respondent Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram Samrakshana Samithi has filed a counter affidavit dated 06.02.2017, producing therewith Exts.R5(A) to R5(E) documents. The 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust has filed a counter affidavit dated 12.02.2018, producing therewith Exts.R6(A) to R6(H) documents.

4. The learned Ombudsman has filed TDB Report No.2 of 2018 dated 05.01.2018, wherein it is stated that Complaint No.337 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was closed on 21.11.2016. W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 5

2025:KER:27480

5. On 05.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed a detailed order. Paragraphs 2 to 7 of that order read thus;

"2. The learned counsel contends that even though the allegation in the writ petition is that the Vilakkumadom palace, which is comprised of about 6.4 Ares of land in Edayaranmula Village, is a property that vests in the Travancore Devaswom Board on account of Section 3 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, the fact remains that the said properties are now owned by the Trust through Exts.R6A to R6E documents. The learned counsel says that the Vilakkumadom Palace is now in a state of ruin and that it faces a real danger of even collapsing. He points out that the 6th respondent Trust has caused a Devaprasanam, which is an astrological ritual to ascertain the divine intent of the deity, to be held with respect to the need and requirement of reconstructing the said palace and that the recommendations of such prasanam has been placed on record as Ext.R6G. The learned counsel prays that the Trust be allowed to cause the repair and maintenance of the Vilakkumadom Palace in terms of the findings in Ext.R6G and he adds that there will be no prejudice even to the petitioner, if the work is allowed to done. According to him, the entire money for this purpose is taken from their own resources and that they do not rely on any collection from others including from devotees.

3. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, though does not oppose the prayer for maintenance and repair of the Vilakkumadom palace, voices W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 6 2025:KER:27480 his apprehension that by such a process the 6th respondent should not be allowed to take up an assertion that they are the owners of the property. He still maintains that the property in question, on which the palace is situated, should be construed to be belonging to the Devaswom and that some kind of control should be available on the property by the Devaswom pending this writ petition, if any further construction activity is allowed in the palace.

4. Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board submits in affirmation of the contentions of the petitioner and says that the property in question belongs to the Travancore Devaswom Board and according to him, it will be in the correctness of things that any construction activity there be done only by the Devaswom or under its supervision.

5. We have considered the various submissions of the learned counsel as above. We are certainly of the view that pending this writ petition, if no work is permitted on the vilakkumadom palace, then the imminent danger of its suffering even a collapse cannot be ruled out. To avoid any such contingency, we think that it will be necessary to allow the parties to effect necessary repairs and maintenance on the building to ensure that it remains in the same manner as it is presently available, but with necessary structural integrity. We notice from Ext.R6G Prasnacharthu that the main recommendations therein are that the building be maintained exactly in the same manner as it is presently found, that no structural change is made to it, that there be worship conducted everyday and such other attendant conditions.

W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 7

2025:KER:27480 Since it would not be in the interest of any of the parties to leave the structure unattended, on account of the pendency of the writ petition, we are of the view that, as an interim measure, the 6th respondent be allowed to make such structural repairs and maintenance as are absolutely warranted on the Vilakkumadam palace, adhering implicitly to the recommendations, in Ext.R6G prasnacharthu and on the specific condition that they will not collect any fund from any other source other than expending it from their own resources. All such repair and maintenance will be done in terms of any other applicable Acts, Rules and Regulations and the 3rd respondent -Assistant Commissioner Travancore Devaswom Board, will either supervise all such repairs and maintenance personally or through an authorised officer, so as to ensure that the 6th respondent acts within the terms of this order and as mandated by Ext.R6G prasanacharthu.

6. Needless to say, this being an interim arrangement, the 6th respondent could not obtain any right over the property in question in equity or otherwise, if we are to finally find in this writ petition that the property belongs to the Travancore Devaswom Board and they would not be entitled to claim any amounts, either by restitution or compensation for the work now carried on by them under this order.

7. At this time, Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal says that offerings are made by devotees at Vilakkumadom Palace during the season. He says that this amount should not be allowed to be appropriated by the 6th respondent and that the Devaswom Board should be directed to take control of the same. As an interim measure again, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assistant Commissioner - 3rd W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 8 2025:KER:27480 respondent, either personally or through an officer authorised by him, to collect and maintain an account for all such offerings in a separate account to be maintained in the name of the Board, until further orders are obtained from this Court."

6. On 03.04.2018, the 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust has filed I.A.No.6478 of 2018, seeking modification of the aforesaid order dated 05.03.2018, insofar as it relates to the supervisory powers conferred on the 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board. Respondents 1 to 4 have filed I.A.No.6924 of 2018 seeking appropriate orders regarding the day-to-day affairs of Vilakkumadam Palace. On 09.04.20218, this Court passed a detailed order in those interlocutory applications. The said order reads thus;

"Among these I.A.s, I.A.No.6924 of 2018 has been filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board whereas I.A.No. 6478 of 2018 has been filed by the 6th respondent in the writ petition.

2. In the writ petition, we have passed an interim order, dated 05.03.2018, taking note of certain very specific averments. The issue brought to our notice at that point of time was with regard to the imperative nature of the restoration work to be done at the Vilakkumadom Palace, as also the control over the donations that were received from the devotees.

W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 9

2025:KER:27480

3. In the said order, we had directed that the party respondents in the writ petition can be allowed to conduct restoration work subject, however, to the supervision of the Assistant Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board. Additionally, we have also made an arrangement, as an interim measure, that the collection of offerings shall be controlled and accounted for by the Assistant Commissioner or the person authorized by him. Unfortunately, these directions appears to have been completely misinterpreted by the Travancore Devaswom Board, which has caused them to file I.A.No.6924 of 2018 making several prayers. In the said I.A., they have sought for the appointment of a part-time Santhi, part-time Kazhakam etc. for the purpose of conducting poojas at the Vilakkumadom Palace and for directions from this Court to enable them to conduct a 'Sapthaha Yajnam' at the palace this April. We fail to understand why the Travancore Devaswom Board has taken up these responsibilities of conducting pooja, etc in the Vilakkumadom Palace, when none of the averments in the writ petition or in the counter affidavit support an impression that regular poojas are being conducted, akin to a temple, in this palace as of now. In such a view of the matter, since the ambit of our order dated 5th March 2018 was not to convert this palace into a temple or to enable the Travancore Devaswom Board to take control of it physically, we do not find any reason to grant the Travancore Devaswom Board any of the reliefs, as has been sought for in I.A.No.6924 of 2018.

4. That being said, I.A.No.6478 of 2018 has been filed by the 6th respondent in the writ petition alleging that under W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 10 2025:KER:27480 the cover of the directions in our order, dated 05.03.2018, attempts are being made by the Travancore Devaswom Board to take control of the Vilakkumadaom palace.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the learned standing counsel for the Board.

6. Our dated 05.03.2018 is absolutely clear and unequivocal in its terms that the only responsibility that we had vested with the Travancore Devaswom Board as of now is to supervise the renovation work as also to take control over the offerings.

7. We are unable comprehend why the Board should do anything further than what we have explicitly ordered, and for such reasons, as we have already said above, the prayers at I.A.No.6924 of 2018 cannot be sustained.

8. Consequently, I.A.No.6478 of 2018 filed by the 6 th respondent in writ petition also becomes unnecessary, and hence it is closed.

9. We clarify that all the disputes as to whether the Vilakkumadom Palace belongs to the Trustees or the Travancore Devaswom Board is still at large and it is amenable to the orders further to be passed in this writ petition in future. Until such time, our directions in the order, dated 05.03.2018, will govern the field and we make it clear that the authorities of the Travancore Devaswom Board will only supervise the restoration/ renovation work of the Vilakkumadom palace to be conducted by the Trustees and that only the Kanikka/Bandharam will be brought under the control of the Travancore Devaswom Board and no other structures or properties belonging to the Vilakkumadom Palace.

W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 11

2025:KER:27480 With these observations, these two I.A.s are disposed of."

7. On 25.03.2019, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2019, seeking modification of the interim order dated 05.03.2018 and to restrain the 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust from making any further alteration or renovation of Vilakkumadam Palace and to direct the Travancore Devaswom Board to submit a report after conducting an inspection as to the present condition of Vilakkumadom Palace and as to whether any immediate renovation is necessary for the said building.

8. On 27.05.2019, a statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 was placed on record, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) statement dated 03.04.2019 of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Aranmula Group. The said statement was followed by I.A.No.2 of 2019 filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board, producing therewith Ext.R1(b) photographs and seeking permission to take appropriate action in accordance with law, against the encroachers of Vilakkumadom Palace property.

9. On 25.11.2019, I.A.No.3 of 2019 was filed by respondents 1 to 4 to accept Ext.R1(c) letter dated 18.11.2019 as an additional document. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.4 of 2019 W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 12 2025:KER:27480 th seeking an order to restrain the 6 respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust from making any construction in the place of the demolished building of Vilakkumadam Palace, till the issue pertaining to the title of the land is finally decided by this Court in this writ petition. The said interlocutory application was accompanied by I.A.No.5 of 2019 filed by the petitioner to accept Ext.P3 as an additional document.

10. On 07.02.2023, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether any purchase certificate has already been issued in respect of the disputed property, which forms part of Ext.P1 settlement register of Aranmula Village.

11. On 05.03.2025, we heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadam Kottaram Samrakshana Samithi and the learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust and also the learned Senior Government W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 13 2025:KER:27480 Pleader for additional respondents 7 to 10. By the order dated 05.03.2025, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board was directed to make available for the perusal of this Court the original land register maintained by the Board in respect of the land in question.

12. On 19.03.2025, when this matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board made available for the perusal of this Court the old and new land registers of Aranmula Devaswom. In the order dated 19.03.2025, this Court noticed the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board that Sy.Nos.228/19, 20 and 21 of Aranmula Village finds no place in the old land register or in the new land register of Aranmula Devaswom. The learned Standing Counsel permitted the learned counsel on both sides to peruse the land registers. By the order dated 19.03.2025, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to place on record an affidavit sworn to by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, before the next posting date, after verifying the land registers.

13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a counter affidavit dated 24.03.2025 on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, which is one W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 14 2025:KER:27480 sworn to by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, is placed on record. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that affidavit read thus;

"3. It may be noted that this Hon'ble Court on 05.03.2018 had passed a detailed order in connection with the maintenance and repair of Vilakkumadam Palace. This Hon'ble Court had allowed the 6th respondent to make such structural repairs and maintenance on the Vilakkumadam Palace in accordance to Ext.R6(g) Prasna Charth. It was also stated that the 6th respondent shall not collect any fund from any source other than from it's own sources. The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Aranmula was directed to supervise all such repairs and maintenance. Further the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, Aranmula was also directed to collect and maintain an account of the offerings made by the devotees at Vilakkumadam Palace in a separate account to be maintained in the name of the Board until further orders.

4. It is submitted that during the course of hearing held on 12.02.2025, this Hon'ble Court had directed these respondents to make available the land register pertaining to the Aranmula Devaswom in order to ascertain as to whether the property in question in the writ petition finds it's place in the land register or not. In compliance to the said order, these respondents had made available the relevant land register maintained in the Aranmula Devaswom. As per the same, there is no entry of Survey Nos.228/19, 228/20 and 228/21 in the land register wherein the Vilakkumadam is situated. However, the fact that the Vilakkumadam Palace is considered to be the Moolasthanam of Aranmula Sreekrishna W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 15 2025:KER:27480 Swamy is even admitted by the 6th respondent also. It is also an admitted fact that the Procession and other rituals in connection with the Aranmula temple starts from the Vilakkumadam palace itself. Therefore, the same establishes the fact that the property in question is closely associated with the Aranmula temple and its rituals."

14. Heard further arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board for respondents 1 to 4, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent Samithi, the learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent Trust and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for additional respondents 7 to 10.

15. As already noticed in the order of this Court dated 19.03.2025, the land in Sy.Nos.228/19, 20 and 21 of Aranmula Village finds no place in the old land register or in the new land register of Aranmula Devaswom. In the counter affidavit dated 24.03.2025 filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4, which is one sworn to by the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, it is stated that there is no entry of Sy.Nos.228/19, 228/20 and 228/21 of Aranmula Village in the land register, wherein Vilakkumadom Palace is situated. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the fact that Vilakkumadom Palace is considered to be the Moolasthanam of Aranmula Sree Krishna Swamy is even admitted W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 16 2025:KER:27480 th by the 6 respondent Trust and it is also admitted that procession and other rituals in connection with Aranmula Temple starts from Vilakkumadom Palace. Therefore, the property in question is closely associated with Aranmula Temple and its rituals.

16. The learned Senior Counsel for the 6th respondent Edayaranmula Thiruvaranmula Moolasthanam Vilakkumadom Kottaram Samrakshana Trust would submit that the said trust, which is presently in ownership and possession of the property covered by Exts.R6(A) to R6(C) gift deeds, is also not disputing the fact that Vilakkumadom Palace is the Moolasthanam of Aranmula Sree Krishna Swamy and that procession and other rituals in connection with Aranmula Temple starts from Vilakkumadom Palace. Further, Mulaezhunallathu in connection with the annual festival of the temple takes place in Vilakkumadam Palace.

17. We do not propose to consider in detail the rituals or customary practices that takes place at Vilakkumadam Palace, in connection with the annual festival and other ceremonies of Aranmula Parthasarathi Temple, since there is no entry of Sy.Nos.228/19, 228/20 and 228/21 of Aranmula Village in the original land registers of Aranmula Devaswom, where W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 17 2025:KER:27480 Vilakkumadom Palace situates. For the above reason, the said property cannot be treated as the Devaswom land of Aranmula Devaswom. In that view of the matter, the provisions under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked in respect of the said land, as sought for in this writ petition.

18. Since Vilakkumadom Palace is the Moolasthanam of Aranmula Parthasarathi Temple and Mulaezhunallathu in connection with the annual festival takes place in Vilakkumadom Palace, the building situated in Exts.R6(A) to R6(C) gift deeds will have to be maintained as such by the 6th respondent trust, which shall be open to the devotees in connection with the rituals and customary practices of Aranmula Parthasarathi Temple. In connection with such rituals and customary practices, the 4 th respondent Administrative Officer, Aranmula Group shall place a hundi at the Moolasthanam, for the devotees to give their offerings to the deity of Aranmula Parthasarathi Temple. The hundi collection shall be accounted separately in the audited accounts of Aranmula Devaswom, which are being subjected to audit by the Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 6 th respondent Trust that the amounts already collected in terms of W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 18 2025:KER:27480 the order of this Court dated 05.03.2018, which is kept in a separate account, can be credited to the account of Aranmula Devaswom, after giving a proper receipt to the 6 th respondent Trust, is recorded.

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

Since O.S.No.202 of 2014 filed by the 6th respondent Trust seeking injunction against the 5th respondent Samithi is pending consideration before the Munsiff Court, Pathanamthitta, we make it clear that in this judgment this Court has not dealt with any contentions in respect of the inter-se dispute between the 5th respondent Samithi and 6th respondent Trust. The rival contentions are left open to be raised before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MIN W.P.(C)No.39216 of 2016 19 2025:KER:27480 APPENDIX OF WP(C)NO.39216/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THE ARANMULA VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OMBUDSMAN FOR TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD.

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BUILDING DEMOLISHED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO 4858 DATED 18.11.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 13.12.2013 EXHIBIT R5(B) A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PERFORMANCE OF RITUALS BY THANKAPPAN NAIR EXHIBIT R5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT R5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT R5(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.1.2017 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD EXHIBIT-R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO 1581/2103 DATED 23.12.2013 EXECUTED BY SMT.PADMINI EXHIBIT-R6(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO 1611 OF 2013 DATED 30.12.2013 EXECUTED BY SRI SASIKUMAR EXHIBIT-R6(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO 578 OF 2015 DATED 18.5.2015 EXECUTED BY SMT. BHARATHIAMMA EXHIBIT-R6(D) TRUE COPIES OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-R6(E) TRUE COPIES OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT-R6(F) TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE VILAKKUMADOM KOTTARAM EXHIBIT R6(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEVAPRASNA CHARTHU EXHIBIT R6(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCALITY ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 03.04.2019 OF THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, ARANMULA EXHIBIT R1(B) COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court