IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18714 of 2009(H)
1. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS
... Respondent
2. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
3. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE
4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
For Respondent :SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SC FOR GDB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :22/12/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009
J U D G M E N T
P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner is challenging the decision taken by the Managing
Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the sanction stated as
accorded by the Commissioner to sell the property belonging to the
Devaswom, to the families evicted pursuant to the land acquisition
proceedings (as part of the rehabilitation measures), alleging violation
of Section 11 (3) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and Rule 12
(4) of the Rules thereunder.
2. The petitioner is an Association of Employees of the
Guruvayur Devaswom and it is stated as engaged in championing the
cause of fighting against the alleged mal-administration, misuse of the
Devaswom funds and thus to protect the interest of the Guruvayur
Sreekrishna Temple. The specific case of the petitioner is that, though
the property within a specified radius from the outer wall of the
Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple on the ‘south nada’ was acquired by
the Guruvayur Devaswom, invoking the provisions under the Land
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 2 :
acquisition Act, paying the compensation as prescribed, steps are being
taken to allot and assign the land of the Devaswom, by conveying 5 cents
each to the evictees, at ‘Thuruthikad paramba’ which is having a total
extent of 12.7 acres. It is contended that the aforesaid steps being taken,
allegedly as part of the rehabilitation measures, cannot be pursued any
further, since the properties have been acquired paying huge
compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and also when the cases
preferred by the owners of the property for enhancement of the
compensation are still pending.
3. With regard to the facts and events, it is to be noted that the
Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple is an ancient temple of unique
importance and it owns large extents of properties and endowments,
attracting millions of devotees from all corners in India and abroad. In
order to facilitate proper administration and management of the Temple,
its properties and endowments, the State enacted the Guruvayur
Devaswom Act, 1971. But the operative portion of the said Act happened
to be struck down by this Court in O.P. 314/1973 as violative of Article 25
and 26 of the Constitution of India, which led to enactment of the
Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978. By virtue of Section 3 of the said Act,
the administration, control and management of the Devaswom stand
vested with a Committee, namely, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 3 :
Committee constituted under Section 4. The alienation of the Devaswom
property is dealt with under Section 11 of the Act and specific sanction of
the Devaswom Commissioner is required to be obtained in the manner
prescribed therein, read with Rule 12 of the relevant Rules thereunder;
lest the transfer of the property should become null and void.
4. Earlier, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in O.P.
314/1973, the property within a radius of 100 metres from the outer wall of
the Temple was decided to be acquired for better administration and
management of the Temple, considering the difficulties and hardships
being faced by the general public. The decision rendered by this Court
was subjected to challenge by the aggrieved persons before the Apex
Court, where interference was declined and the same has become final
by virtue of the decision in C.K.Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and others,
reported in AIR 1994 Kerala 179. Initially, the properties within the
radius of 25 meters from the outer wall of the Temple were intended to be
acquired. Considering the hardships of the people who had to be evicted
from the premises and who were very much connected with the Temple
some way or the other, it was decided as a matter of policy, to acquire
some land elsewhere, so as to rehabilitate the evictees. Accordingly,
necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 01.10.1999. After complying with the formalities, the said land
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 4 :
was acquired by the Devaswom for rehabilitating the evictees as above;
to provide parking for vehicles and to arrange necessary
facilities/infrastructure to the pilgrims. This property known as
‘Thuruthikad paramba’, situated very near to the Guruvayur Railway
station, is having an extent of about 12.7 acres.
5. While so, the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, in
its meeting held on 07.08.2007 decided to rehabilitate those who lost their
property in the process of acquisition in the ‘south nada’ and accordingly,
sanction of the second respondent was decided to be sought for as per
Ext.P1 resolution dated 17.08.2007, so as to allot 5 cents each to the
respective house owners, after collecting the value of the land to be fixed
by the District Collector. The second respondent/Commissioner, vide
Ext.P2, thought it fit to grant sanction, with intent to avoid the L.A.R.
cases seeking for enhancement of compensation. It is stated that some
other hurdles were pointed out in the meanwhile, which made the
Managing Committee to pass Ext.P3 resolution on 10.12.2008 seeking to
modify Ext.P2. It was accordingly, that the second respondent passed
Ext.P5 dated 15.06.2009 giving consent for sale of the Devaswom
property having an extent of 5 cents each, to the 11 families who were
evicted from the ‘south nada’.
6. The decision taken by the Committee and the sanction given
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 5 :
by the second respondent Commissioner were to the chagrin of the
petitioner, who filed Ext.P6 representation and approached this Court
seeking for immediate interference. The averments and allegations in the
Writ Petition have been rebutted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
the respondents 3 and 4, where it has been categorically stated that the
very ‘Thuruthikad paramba’ was acquired mainly for the purpose of
rehabilitating the families evicted from the vicinity of the Temple. It is also
pointed out that there is no violation of any statutory prescription and that
the allegations raised to the contrary are quite wrong and misconceived.
7. As noted above, it has been made clear in paragraph 3 of the
above counter affidavit that the land at ‘Turuthikad paramaba’ was
acquired mainly for the purpose of rehabilitating the evictees of the
proposed acquisition within 100 mts from the outer wall of the Temple and
this being the position, the allegation as to the violation of the statutory
requirements under Section 11 and Rule 12 (4) of Guruvayur Devaswom
Act and the Devaswom Rules respectively, is stated as far-fetched and
against the actual facts and figures. It has been pointed out in paragraph
5 and elsewhere in the counter affidavit that, when the ‘first phase’ of the
acquisition of 25 mts around the Temple was undertaken, persons who
had shops in the said area were rehabilitated, providing bunks at the
‘Managalya Complex’, and it was adopting the very same yardstick, that
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 6 :
the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee decided to provide 5
cents each at ‘Turuthikad paramba’ to the concerned families who were
evicted from the ‘south nada’; also taking note of the fact that they were
traditional workers of the Devaswom and that their service could not be
dispensed with. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the
allotment is being made after obtaining necessary sanction from the
second respondent; that the Devaswom has not executed any sale deed
and will not act against the interest of the devotees as alleged; that the
rehabilitation process is still to be materialised and that the Guruvayur
Devaswom will follow all the norms, procedure and the formalities before
implementation of the Scheme (paragraph 10 and 11). It is further added
that the step for rehabilitating the evicted persons can, by no stretch of
imagination, be said to be against the interest of the Guruvayur
Devaswom; more so when, the families evicted from the ‘south nada’
were traditional workers of the Temple and have been taking part in the
Temple rituals and other activities for a long time (paragraph 12).
8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the
contentions raised in the Writ Petition and pointing out that the land in
question at ‘Turuthikad paramba’ has already been decided to be utilised
by the Devaswom for construction of a ‘Super Speciality Hospital’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the idea and intention of
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 7 :
the petitioner is only to protect and preserve the Devaswom properties
and to have it utilised in the best possible manner, in accordance with the
relevant provisions of law. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the
respondents 3 & 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submit that the allegations raised by
the petitioner are contrary to the actual facts and figures and that there is
absolutely no room for any apprehension as expressed by the petitioner,
the steps pursued by the concerned respondents being quite in
conformity with the relevant provisions of law.
9. Obviously, Ext.P1, P2 and P3 proceedings which are sought
to be quashed in the Writ Petition were taken/passed on 17.08.2007,
28.02.2008 and 10.12.2008 respectively. The basic decision as contained
in Ext.P1 (passed on 17.08.2007) is sought to be challenged by the
petitioner only after a period of ‘2 years’, for which absolutely no
explanation has been offered in the Writ Petition. After considering Ext.P1
resolution, the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P2 conveyed that sanction was
being given to allot the land for rehabilitation, at the cost price to be fixed
by the Government and that, the said step was with the specific intent to
avoid the possible Land Acquisition cases and other litigations seeking for
enhancement of the compensation; which cannot be said as contrary to
the interest of the Devaswom. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent passed
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 8 :
Ext.P3 resolution on 10.12.2008, as to the further course of action with
regard to the allotment of land in ‘Thuruthikad paramba’, to the concerned
families, for which the price fixed by the Government was stated as
Rs.90,783/- per cent in respect of the 5 cents to be allotted to each family.
After considering the legal and factual position brought to the notice of the
2nd respondent vide Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 on
15.06.2009 granting fresh sanction for the purpose of rehabilitation of the
11 families who had executed necessary ‘agreements’ (as stipulated in
item No.3 referred to therein, i.e., Ext.P2 order passed by the very same
respondent on 28.02.2008). This means, the agreement has been
executed in terms of Ext.P2, with intent to avoid the LA reference cases
and other litigations seeking for enhancement of compensation. The
steps taken by the concerned respondents can never be said as
detrimental to the interest of the Devaswom in any manner and the
question of rehabilitation in proper cases is purely a matter of policy
decision, which is not liable to be interfered by this Court. This is more
so, when the allotment of plot is stated as on the basis of the price to be
fixed by the Government and subject to no loss, to be caused to the
Government or the Devaswom in any manner.
10. With regard to the alleged violation of the statutory
prescription under Section 11 (3) and Rule 12 (4) and as to the
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 9 :
procedural formalities to be complied with, before granting sanction by the
Commissioner, it has to be borne in mind that the said provisions are
more to bring it to the notice of all concerned, as to the proposed move to
effect the transaction, with clear idea as to the identity of the property,
inviting objections, to have acted upon in an appropriate manner. When
challenge is raised with regard to the proposed alienation of the land (at
the rate of 5 cents each to the evicted families) by way of rehabilitation,
the petitioner quite conveniently forgot the fact that the very property in
‘Thuruthikad paramba’ was acquired, also for the purpose of rehabilitation
of the persons who were to be evicted from the premises within the
stipulated radius from the outer wall of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna
Temple, pursuant to acquisition. The learned Government Pleader also
placed the relevant ‘File’ before this Court, which contains the notification
dated 01.10.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
published in different Dailies. The said notification clearly reveals the
‘public purpose’ of acquisition, i.e. to rehabilitate the people who were to
be evicted on acquiring the land within the specified radius from the outer
wall of Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple; among other things. Admittedly,
the above notification or the said ‘public purpose’ of rehabilitation, to be
satisfied on acquiring the property as above, is not under challenge. The
petitioner has no case that the decision taken by the Managing
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 10 :
Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, more than a decade
back, to provide for rehabilitation as above, by acquiring necessary extent
of properties and the subsequent proceedings including the notification in
connection with the acquisition were challenged from their side in any
manner. Thus, after acquiring the property at ‘Thuruthikad paramba’, also
for providing rehabilitation to the evicted families pursuant to the
acquisition around the outer wall of the Guruvayur Temple, it is no more
open for the petitioner to contend now, that no such alienation of the land
for rehabilitation is permissible. The proposed rehabilitation very much
involves a ‘public purpose’ and the acquisition for the said public purpose
has become final.
11. It was incidentally brought to the notice of this Court that the
price fixed by the Government for allotment of land in ‘Thuruthikad
paramba’, though as a measure of rehabilitation, at the rate of
Rs.90,783/- as mentioned in Ext.P3 is abysmally low and it will cause
much loss and hardships to the Devaswom. It is stated that the price fixed
as above, was calculated on the basis of the cost incurred for the
acquisition of the concerned properties at ‘Thuruthikad paramba’. It is
also brought to the notice of this Court that the cases pursuant to the
acquisition of the land in ‘Thuruthikad paramba’ seeking for enhancement
of compensation have not become final and that the total ‘cost’ can be
WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009
: 11 :
ascertained only after finalisation of all the reference cases/
Appeals/SLPs, if any. This Court finds some force in the said submission
and as such, makes it clear that, while executing the sale deeds, it has
necessarily to be incorporated therein, that the price fixed is only
‘tentative’ and without prejudice to the right of the Devaswom/Government
to have it finalised, refixed and the balance demanded on culmination of
all the land acquisition cases, along with such other necessary provisions
to safeguard the interest of the Devaswom in this regard.
The challenge raised against Ext.P1 to P3 and P5 is held as
unsustainable. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
dnc