Travancore Devaswom Board vs * The State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2025

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Travancore Devaswom Board vs * The State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2025

W.P.(C) No.28683 of 2013 is filed by the Travancore Devaswom Board represented by its Secretary, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent State of Kerala to conduct a re-investigation in the Karimannoor Police Station Crime No.405 of 2013 in respect of the theft of idols and other belongings of the temple under the Kizhakkekavu Devaswom or hand over the investigation to another agency and also a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to provide necessary protection from the 4th respondent to conduct poojas and worship in the land having an extent of 7 Ares and 40 Sq. metres in Survey No.1274-1 and 127/4-2 (Re-Survey No.252/2) in Udumbannoor Village of Thodupuzha Taluk. W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 is also one filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by some devotees of Kizhakkekavu at Udumbannoor Village under the management of 1st respondent Travancore Devaswom Board seeking a declaration that the property having an extent of 1.53 Acres in old Survey No.127/4, (Re.Sy.No.252/1/2) of WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 7 2025:KER:30800 Udumbannoor Village belongs to Kizhakkekavu temple; direct the 8th respondent to vacate that premises within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and also direct the 5th respondent to initiate proceedings under Land conservancy Act to evict the 8 th respondent from that property. The petitioners also sought a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take urgent steps to evict the 8th respondent from the aforesaid property. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are interconnected and is in respect of the very same temple, these writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Going by the averments in W.P.(C)No.28683 of 2013, the petitioner Travancore Devaswom ('the Board' in short) Board is the owner in possession of 7 Ares and 40 sq. metres of land in Survey Nos.127/4-1 and 127/4-2 (Re.Sy.No.252/2) in Udumbannoor Village in Thodupuzha Taluk, which belongs to Kizhakkekavu Devaswom under the Thodupuzha subgroup of the Travancore Devaswom Board. As per Ext.P1 Basic Tax Register of Udumbannoor Village, the property is described as 'Kavu Purambokku'. However, in Ext.P2 new Basic Tax Register, the land is shown as 'Sarkkar Purmabokku'. In the land covered WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 8 2025:KER:30800 under Exts.P1 and P2 documents, a temporary shed has been constructed and idols of lord Siva and Devi along with an old sword, bronze sword and lamps were kept at the bottom of an old jackfruit tree. The public used to conduct worship and poojas on these idols. The Board appointed a priest, who used to conduct poojas on special days. The place is considered as a temple in all aspects.

2.1. On 13-07-2013, the local people complained to the Sub Group Officer of the Board as well as to the police that the 4th respondent had removed the idols and all belongings of the Temple and that the same had been witnessed by the neighbours named Rajamma Shaji and Ammini Joseph. The Bakthajana Samithi, Vellandhanam Kizhakkekavu Devaswom Kshetram filed Ext.P3 complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannoor Police Station in respect of that incident. The Sub Group Officer of the Board also filed Ext.P4 complaint dated 14.07.2013 before the 1st respondent. Ext.P5 crime was registered against the 4 th respondent under Section 379 r/w. Section 34 of IPC as Karimannoor Police station Crime No. 405 of 2013. The leading newspapers also reported the above facts.

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014              9          2025:KER:30800

2.2. The petitioner had in the meanwhile understood that the 4th respondent had filed a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha as O.S. No. 84 of 2010 against 4 persons. In O.S. No. 84 of 2010, the 4th respondent pleaded that she is the owner of 01 Acre 63 cents of land in Re-sy. No. 252/1 & 251/4 in Block 42 of the Udumbannoor Village and prayed for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the said 4 persons from trespassing into the plaint-scheduled property and for a mandatory injunction to remove the structures erected in the plaint-scheduled property. Even though the defendants therein had appeared and filed a written statement in the suit, they were declared ex-parte at the time of trial. The learned Munsiff passed Ext.P8 judgment dated 14.12.2011 as prayed by the 4th respondent. It could be seen from Ext. P8 Judgment that neither the Board nor the Government made a party in that suit. Ext. P8 Judgment is not against the Board or the Kizhakkekavu Devaswom. In other words, the 4th respondent has no right or possession over the properties covered under Exts. P1 & P2.

2.3 The 1st respondent conducted an enquiry and filed Ext. P9 final report as a referred case stating the reason as a "mistake of fact" in the crime registered against the 4 th WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 10 2025:KER:30800 respondent. The 1st respondent has not conducted any investigation in respect of the theft of idols and other belongings of the Temple. In the commission report filed by the Advocate Commissioner in O.S. No. 84 of 2010 it is reported that there were Idols of Lord Shiva and Devi, bronze lamps and bells and an old sword. The 1st respondent has stated in Ext. P9 final report that the shed was removed as per the orders of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha in the execution proceedings pursuant to Ext. P8. The facts stated in Ext. P9 final report and Ext. P8 judgment are contrary to the facts and circumstances. The 1st respondent has failed to conduct a proper investigation in the crime. The 2nd and 3rd respondents also failed to take necessary action against the illegal encroachment over the Devaswom property. Hence the petitioner filed the writ petition.

3. According to the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014, they are members of Kizhakkekavu Samrakshana Samithy, an organization formed to protect the temple and its properties. The main deities of this temple are Lord Shiva and Vana Durga. The property having an extent of 1 Acre 53 cents in Old. Sy. No. 127/4 of Udumbanoor Village absolutely belongs to the Kizhakekavu Devaswom. This property is described in the WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 11 2025:KER:30800 settlement register as Kavu purumboke. But now the property has come to the hands of the 8th respondent, and she is holding the property on the strength of the certificate issued by the Land Tribunal. In view of the nature of the property, it is exempted from the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. So the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal is ab initio null and void. The 8th respondent, under the guise of executing the decree in O.S. No.84 of 2010 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha, removed the deities of the Kavu and a shed nearby, from the property. The 8th respondent clandestinely filed the suit against 4 persons without making Travancore Devaswom Board or any of its functionaries, parties to the suit and succeeded in seeing that an ex-parte decree was passed in her favour. As deities and other paraphernalia attached to it were removed, illegally and unauthorisedly by the 8th respondent, a police complaint has been lodged by some of the devotees before the Sub Inspector of police, Karimannoor.

3.1. The devotees of the temple conducted Karimannoor Police Station March under the leadership of the Udumbannoor Panchayath President, demanding action against those culprits who had destroyed the temple properties and removed the idols.

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014              12              2025:KER:30800

But in spite of all these efforts taken by the devotees, they did not succeed even to wake up the 1st respondent from its deep slumber. The 1st respondent ought to have directed its Land conservancy unit under the 5th respondent to take steps to recover the properties, illegally and unauthorisedly occupied by the 8th respondent. But, ignoring the statutory duties imposed on the 1st respondent, it continues the lukewarm and lethargic attitude in the matter.

3.2. As per entries in the settlement register and Revenue records, the land having 1 Acre 35 cents in old Sy. No. 127/4 of Udumbanoor Village, is classified as Kavu puramboke (holy grove). Moreover, these types of properties belonging to temples are exempted from the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as per section 3(1)(x). Therefore, the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to initiate suo moto proceedings under section 72 (c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. At no point of time, the 1 st respondent Board created any tenancy in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the 8th respondent. The predecessor-in-interest of the 8th respondent was granted only the right to take usufructs from the trees standing in the above extent of land, in an auction conducted on 16.12.1953 by way of WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 13 2025:KER:30800 Kuthakapattam. It would indicate in unambiguous terms that the nature of this property is 'Kavu Purumboke'.

4. The 1st respondent in W.P.(C)No.28683 of 2013 filed a statement dated 02.12.2013. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that statement read thus:

"2. It is respectfully submitted that on 17.07.2013 a case in Crime No. 405/2013 u/s.379 r/w 34 IPC was registered in the Karimannoor Police station on the strength of a complaint filed by one Sri.D. Jayakumar. Sub Group Officer, Travancore Devaswom Board against Smt. Sara Umman and others. The gist of the allegation is that the accused persons committed theft of idols and other belongings of the temple under Kizhakkekkavu Devaswon on 13.07.2013.

3. It is true that the Sub Group Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board also filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannur on 14.07.2013 alleging theft of idols and other belongings of the temple. Initially the complaint was registered as Petition No.89301/13 and after conducting preliminary enquiry a case was registered on 17.07.2013 as Crime No. 405/13. During the course of investigation the statement of witnesses were recorded and scene mahazer has been prepared. It is revealed during the investigation that there was a property dispute which was being considered by the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court, Thodupuzha in O.S. No. 84/2010. The above suit was filed by Smt. Sara Umman against one Mr. Anuraj and WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 14 2025:KER:30800 others. The above case was disposed of by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court vide judgment dated 14.12.2011. As per the judgment the defendants in the suit were directed by way of mandatory injunction to remove the structures erected in the Plaint Schedule Property within a period of 60 days from the date of decree and in default, the plaintiff was at liberty to remove the structures upon risks and costs of the defendants, through the intervention of the Court. On investigation it is revealed that an extent of 1.63 cents of land comprised in Re. Sy. No.252/1 252/4 belongs to Smt. Sara Umman.

4. It is submitted that during investigation it is disclosed that the alleged demolition of the shed was effected on 11.07.2013 by the Amin, deputed by the Hon'ble Munsiff's court and the articles were removed from the property while executing the above decree pursuant to the execution petition No.60/12 in O.S.No.84/2010. The investigation further revealed that the allegation of theft committed by the accused persons is totally false and baseless. As stated earlier, the shed was demolished and the articles were removed in execution of a decree passed in favour of Smt. Sara Umman by the Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha and therefore no offence as alleged by the defacto complainant was committed by the accused persons and the complainant was mis-representing before the police authority by filing of false and frivolous complaint against the accused persons.

5. It is humbly submitted that after completing the investigation a final report has been filed before the WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 15 2025:KER:30800 Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha on 22.09.2013. If the petitioner has any grievance against the above Final report, he can approach the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha challenging the above report."

5. On 19.01.2015, when W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 came up for consideration, after hearing both sides, this Court appointed Sri. Rajesh Chakyat, a learned counsel of this Court as an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.84 of 2010 on the file of the Munsiff court, Thodupuzha and to submit a report before this Court as to whether a Kavu or remnants of Kavu are in existence therein. The Advocate Commissioner was further directed to take photographs and produce copies of the same along with the report if he finds a Kavu or remnants of a Kavu in the plaint schedule property.

6. On 01.07.2015, as per the order in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014, the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha was directed to send the entire trial court records and execution records of O.S.No.84 of 2010 through a messenger to this Court, to be available on 02.07.2015 by 4.00 p.m. On the very same day, by another order passed in both the writ petitions, the Tahsildar, WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 16 2025:KER:30800 Thodupuzha, was directed to ensure that the property in dispute in these writ petitions are provided with appropriate security cover, as may be found necessary to ensure that the properties are preserved in as is where is in condition. In pursuance to the said direction the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha, visited the property in question and filed an additional statement dated 27.07.2015. Paragraph 2 of that statement reads thus:

"2. As directed by this Hon'ble Court, the Office of the 3 rd respondent has visited the property in dispute on 02.07.15 itself. The fact discerned after the site inspection are furnished herein. The disputed property is situated at a place called Kizhakkekavu near Vavalkadu of Udumbannoor Village. The property lies about 2 K.m away from Pannoor near Thattakuzha. The total extent of the property including the property in dispute is 00.66.20 Hectares, comprised in old Sy.No.127/4 (Re-Sy. No.252/1, 252/2 and 252/4) of Block No.42 of Udumbannoor Village. At the beginning of the road leading to the disputed property, it is seen that there is an arch with wordings "Kizhakkekavu Devi Ksethram, Thiruvathamcore Devaswom Board". The vehicular entry to the road towards the disputed property is could seen restricted by installing a metal chair. The dispute is pivoting around a Jack fruit tree, which might have an age of over 30 years. There is also a protective basement constructeds by using Laterite and rock stones surround the Jack fruit. A small WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 17 2025:KER:30800 stone idol is installed under the Jack fruit tree, which is surrounded by a 'Nilavilakku' and a small 'Chuttuvilakku'. Old steps made up of stone are leading to the idol. Plants like 'Sarpagandhi' and 'Koovalam' are growing near the said idol. There is a newly build small shed with a 'Nilavilakku' in front of the Jack fruit tree. The site inspection on 02.07.2015 reveals that there is no probability for any communal violence in the area."

7. The 4th respondent in W.P.(C)No.28683 of 2013 filed a counter affidavit dated 25.10.2022 opposing the averments in the writ petition. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of that counter affidavit read thus:

"4. I am a non resident Indian and that I used to have an extent of I acre and 63 cents of land which I purchased in the year 2002. I had to file a suit when there was an attempt to construct a temple in my land and that the suit was decreed ex parte.

5. it is submitted that I have not indulged in any activities which go against the laws of the land. The final report is filed only pursuant to a proper investigation that was conducted and that there is no scope for a reinvestigation or a further investigation in the matter. There is no scope for registering an offence under section 379 of the IPC in the case in hand. The suit had to be filed only because the persons who were the defendants therein alone were creating the problem and hence they alone had to be injuncted. It is understood that a proper investigation was conducted by the police in the matter and accordingly that WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 18 2025:KER:30800 they have filed a closure report. There is no further need to re investigate that matter as the closure report is filed after due application of mind and taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances."

8. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the Advocate Commissioner appointed in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 visited the property and filed a report dated 27.01.2015 annexing 7 photographs of the property in question. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of that report read thus:

"In the entrance of the said property a flex board was seen in which it was written as KIZHAKKE KAVU DEVI KSHETRAM (കിഴക്കേകാവ് ക്കേവീ ക്കേത്രം). It is reported that in the plaint schedule property visibly a Kavu is there in a very dilapidated condition. The said Kavu is situated more than 40 meters away from the main road and is situated in middle of a mixed plantation of rubber and plantain. Visibly there is an old dilapidated foundation built with laterate stone and granite stone sheets. In the middle of the said foundation there is an age old Jackfruit tree more than 70 years old beneath which a stone idol was seen. It is reported that near that idol a large stone basement/seat (പീഠം) was seen. On the right side of the foundation of the Kavu there is an old carved stone drain (ത്പണാളം) is seen placed on the foundation. Further there is a "Sarppagandhi" tree in front of the Kavu which is also more than 60 years old. The back side of the foundation/Kavu is damaged completely.

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014           19              2025:KER:30800

On my inspection I reasonably believe, seeing the present situation, that earlier there was a perfectly build foundation laying rock sheets on the top and due to the time lapse and also by the growth of the Jackfruit tree the foundation becomes damaged."

9. The 8th respondent in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 filed a counter affidavit dated 20.02.2015 producing therewith Exts.R8 to R8(b) documents. It is contended in that counter affidavit that 1 Acre 62 Cents of land in Survey Nos.252/1 and 252/4 of Udumbannoor Village in Block No.42 was obtained by the 8th respondent by virtue of Ext.R8 Sale Deed bearing Nos.10 of 2002 and 11 of 2002 of SRO Karikode. The predecessor in interest of the 8th respondent had obtained that property by virtue of Ext.R8(a) Sale Deed No. 2160 of 2000 of SRO Karikode. By Ext.R8(b) judgment dated 14.12.2011 in O.S.No.84 of 2010 of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha, a permanent prohibitory injunction was granted in favour of the 8th respondent. It is contended by the 8th respondent that the property in question did not vest in any Devaswom at any point of time.

10. To the counter affidavit filed by the 8th respondent, the petitioners filed a reply affidavit dated 13.07.2015 producing therewith Exts.P13 and 14 documents.

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014          20          2025:KER:30800

11. In pursuance to the order dated 01.07.2015, the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha, visited the property in question and measured the same with the help of the Taluk Surveyor, Thodupuzha and produced a plan of the property before this Court.

12. By the order dated 16.10.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2016 the additional 9th respondent was impleaded in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the 9 th respondent.

13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No. 25686 of 2014, the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 8 th respondent in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 and the learned Standing Counsel for Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the property of Kizhakkekavu Devaswom under the management of the Board was trespassed into by the 8th respondent. The additional 9th respondent is a purchaser from the 8th respondent. As per Ext.P2 document produced in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014, the property WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 21 2025:KER:30800 was in the possession of the predecessor of the 8th respondent as a 'Kuthaka Pattam' to collect usufructs and it is not a tenancy under the KLR Act. As per Ext. P13 Basic Tax Register, the property is described as Poramboke. As per Ext.P14, the new Basic Tax Register, the property is described as 'Sarkar Poramboke'. In O.S.No.84 of 2010, the 8th respondent has made her own men as defendants and Devaswom was not a party in that suit. From the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner before this Court, it is clear that the property in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 is a 'Kavu'.

15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent in W.P.(C)No.25686 of 2014 submitted that the 8 th respondent has valid title to the property and she has obtained a decree also from the Civil Court. Devaswom has no right in the property in question. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the property is a 'Kavu Poramboke'.

16. 'Deva' means God and 'sworn' 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].

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014        22          2025:KER:30800

17. 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, require 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.

18. 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] a Three-Judge WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 23 2025:KER:30800 Bench of 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. That was a case wherein the alleged encroachment of Temple property was raised in a complaint filed by a devotee. The Division Bench noticed that 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 Court is the guardian of the deity and apart from the revisional jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the Court is having inherent jurisdiction and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising the jurisdiction.

19. In Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] by referring to the judgment of this court in Lekshmi v. Hendry (1981 KLT SN 71), where in this court had occasion to interpret the word 'cultivate' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, held that in the definition of 'tenant' under the Land Reforms Act a person having 'kuthakapattom' rights is not at all included and hence, a mere licence cannot mature into a tenancy at all.

20. In Nandakumar v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2018 (2) KHC 58], a Division Bench of this Court observed WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 24 2025:KER:30800 that land conservancy proceedings cannot be carried out merely based on re-survey records. Entries in resurvey records are predominantly on the basis of possession as of now. They would be totally worthless, when the question is as to whether lands vested in deities have been encroached upon and controlled by the Devaswom Boards and trustees, reduced to occupation by private persons or other agencies. Obviously, the prior revenue records have to be looked into to ascertain whether there is any parcel which stands vested, in a particular deity. If that be so, collateral materials will also have to be looked into to ascertain the genesis of the property. Even if there is no revenue record in that regard, the vesting, if any, in any deity has to be ascertained.

21. In Ganapathi Namboothiri N.V. v. State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 599], this Court by noting the judgment of this court in Nandakumar [2018 (2) KHC 58] and that of the Apex Court in A.A. Gopalakrishnan [2007 (7) SCC 482] and in Mohanan Nair [2013 (3) KLT 132] held that 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 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 25 2025:KER:30800 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.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the bar, in the light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions, directing the additional respondent District Collector, Idukki to conduct a detailed enquiry as to the nature of the property in question, after calling for the files relating to the same and giving an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties concerned. While conducting such enquiry the District Collector shall consider the survey plan dated 23.11.2015 submitted by the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha and also the land register of the Devaswom properties in the custody of the Travancore Devaswom Board. If the property is included in such register, the District Collector shall consider whether the purchase certificate if any in respect of the property in question was issued after giving notice to the Travancore Devaswom Board. The District Collector shall take a WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013 & WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014 26 2025:KER:30800 decision in the matter, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the interim order dated 01.07.2015 granted by this Court shall continue.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE DSV/-

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014           27          2025:KER:30800


                      APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28683/2013

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER, KEPT IN THE UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE AS KAVU PURAMBOKKU.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NEW BASIC TAX REGISTER KEPT IN THE UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE AS SARKKAR PURAMBOKKU.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE BAKTHAJANA SAMITHI, VELLANDHANAM KIZHAKKEKAVU DEVASWOM KSETRAM. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-07-2013 FILED BY THE SUB GROUP OFFICER OF THE BOARD BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN KARIMANNUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO 405 OF 2013 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 15-07-2013.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 15-07-2013.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-12-2011 IN O.S NO 84 OF 2010.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN KARIMMANNUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO 405 OF 2013.

 WP(C) NO. 28683 OF 2013

& WP(C) NO. 25686 OF 2014           28          2025:KER:30800


                      APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25686/2014

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

P1- THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PLACEMENT OF DEITIES UNDER THE JACKFRUIT TREE.

P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE AUCTION DAIRY.

P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE FORM OF PATTA ISSUED TO RAGHAVAN. P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 17.7.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, KARIMANNUR BEFORE THE JUDICIAL 1ST CLASS MAGISTRATE.

P5- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.84/10 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA.

P6- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 17.5.2010. P7- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2011, IN O.S.NO.84/10 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, THODUPUZHA. P8- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.9.2013. P9- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER CUTTING, IN MANGALAM DAILY DATED 18.7.2013.

P10- THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES PUBLISHED IN RELATION TO PROTEST MEETING AND THE DEVOTEES' MARCH.

P11- THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.11.2013. P12- THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.7.2013.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court