IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 4822 of 2008(Y)
1. MADATHUMPARA SREE AYYAPPA SIVAKSHETHRA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GOVENMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE
3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
4. CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
5. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED
6. K.E.VIJAYAN, S/O.K.C.V.RAJA,
For Petitioner :SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :11/02/2008
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C)NO.4822 OF 2008
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
Petitioner is a samithi, which is registered under the Societies
Registration Act, by name Madathumpara Sree Ayyappa Sivakshethra
Paripalana Samithi. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a
writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the
daily poojas and other rituals in Madathupara Sree Ayyappa
Sivakshethram and for a declaration that the said temple is not included
in the acquisition proceeding pursuant to Ext.P4 notice. The
contention of the petitioner is that for and on behalf of the Water
Authority certain lands were acquired as per Ext.P4 notice. But the
properties in Sy.No.43/1 of Pazhoor amsom, which were specifically
included in the acquisition proceedings, do not take in the temple and
its properties. It is further contended that the poojas are conducted in
the temple and three days before filing of this writ petition the officials
of the 5th respondent obstructed the said poojas being conducted.
2. Learned standing counsel for respondents 3 to 5 was heard in
the matter.
3. Admittedly, the owner of the properties is the 6th respondent
-2-
WP(C).No.4822/2008
from whom the properties were acquired. Whether there exists any temple
or whether the temple properties were also part of the acquisition
proceedings is a matter which could be decided only after taking evidence,
both oral and documentary and after measurement if required. The 6th
respondent being the owner of the property has also not come up by filing
any writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner’s contention is based on
Ext.P9, the agreement said to have been executed by the 6th respondent in
favour of the Samithi enabling them to conduct the management of the
temple.
In such circumstances, the proper remedy available to the petitioner
for adjudication of the dispute is to file a civil suit and not by way of writ
petition. This Court cannot in this summary proceedings take evidence
both oral and documentary, and decide the matter and hence we decline
jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to approach the civil court for
appropriate relief. Status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period
of three weeks and thereafter the matter will be governed based on the
orders that may be passed by the civil court.
Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
kcv.