New Trustees Are Not Barred From Acting Against Illegal Possession Of Temple Property If No Transfer Of Said Property Is Involved: Kerala HC
Finding that the 65 cents of land in Karukutty Village belongs to Deity of Kootholikavu Temple and it is in the illegal possession of Respondents, the Kerala High Court held that since there was no transfer of property involved, the new trustees have all rights to take action for repossession of the temple property that was illegally occupied Respondents.
A Division Judge Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that “Treating the right to recover possession of the 65 cents of property as a chose in action even, it becomes the Devaswom land within the meaning of Section 27 of the TCHRI Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act attracted. Hence orders by which the hierarchical officials under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act declined to take action in respect of the said 65 cents of land only for the reason that the said property was not included in the mahazar is untenable”.
Advocate R. Lakshmi Narayan represented the Petitioners whereas Advocate S. Rajmohan represented the Respondents.
The brief facts of the case were that there were litigations initiated by the Temple Advisory Committee for removing encroachments from the temple property dedicated to a deity. As a sequel to such litigations, the respondent was approached for the removal of encroachments upon the properties of the Temple with a view that the subject property does not come within the purview of section 3 of the Land Conservancy Act. An appeal was preferred before the Sub Collector and District Collector respectively, but both dismissed the same. Later, challenging the said orders, the Temple Advisory Committee approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who refused to intervene stating that the District Collector in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 16(2) of the Land Conservancy Act had taken the decision.
After considering the submission, the Bench noted that “the tenure of 65 cents of the property in question was denoted as Puthottussery Bhagavathy Devaswom property, neither Section 3 nor Section 27 of the TCHRI Act would apply to the said property for, the said property never has become the property of the Travancore Devaswom Board.”
The Bench stated that when the Travancore Devaswom Board assumed the Kootholikavu Temple, its legal effect was that in place of the earlier trustee of the Deity the Travancore Devaswom Board came in as the new trustee.
In law, what all properties, both tangible and intangible, the Deity had would continue to be with the Deity and the Travancore Devaswom Board as the new trustee of the Deity becomes the authority in managing all such properties of the Deity, added the Bench.
Finding that the title to the subject property was never divested from the Deity, the High Court quashed the previous orders and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to take appropriate action for the resumption of possession of the subject property for the Deity of Kootholikavu Temple.
Cause Title: Kshetra Upadeshaka Samithi and Ors v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgement
