IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 180 of 2005(U)
1. VADANAPPILLY SANKARAMANGALAM DEVASWOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C) No. 180 of 2005
and
R.P No.9 of 2005 in O.P No. 6288 of 1988
and
R.P No. 43 of 2005 in O.P No. 6919 of 1988
and
R.P No. 47 of 2005 in O.P No. 6707 of 1988
and
R.P No. 90 of 2005 in O.P No. 8803 of 1988
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair .J,
These review petitions are filed for reviewing the common judgment
in a batch of cases rendered by this Court on 5.9.2000 All the review
petitions are accompanied by delay condonation petition and the delay is
around 5 years. The reasons caused for the delay in filing the review
petitions are administrative reasons such as communication gap etc.
While considering the delay condonation petitions, we have also
considered these cases on merits.
2. The Trust of the Sankaramangalam Devaswom leased out
some extent of property to different persons for cultivation. The lands
have been held by the lessees and subsequently by their successors.
When the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into force, most of the lessees
have applied for purchase certificate under the said Act as cultivating
tenants. None of the trustees of the Devaswom raised any objections
before the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments
about the issuance of the purchase certificates. By virtue of the purchse
certiifcates they became absolute owners of the property. The learned
W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -2-
&
Connected cases.
Government Pleader submitted that sometime in 1985, the then
Managing Trustee of the Devaswom filed complaint before the
Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments stating
that Certificate of Purchase have been issued without prior approval of
the Commissioner . The Commissioner challenged the issuance of the
purchase certificates on the ground that the leases held by some of the
lessees are invalid for want of prior sanction from him under Section
29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951.
Against this order 18 Original Petitions have been filed by the aggrieved
persons and a Division Bench of this Court considered the matter in detail
and by the common judgment dated 5.9.2000, found that the
Commissioner has no authority to unsettle the rights conferred on the
lessees who are the then land owners under the K.L.R Act, even though
the question whether the temple is a public temple or not was raised before
this Court. This Court allowed the Original petitions on the ground that
the Commissioner has no authoirty to interfere with the leases held by the
lessees. The review petitions are filed by the Commissioner raising the
the very same issues which were decided in the original Petitions. The
Managing Trusteee of the Devaswom who was in charge at that time
appears to have died in 1993 The present Managing trustee who is the
petitioner in the connected Writ petition, has no grievance against the
extent of property of the Devaswom being enjoyed by the lessees after
W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -3-
&
Connected cases.
obtaining certificate of purchase . No other trustees of the Devaswom has
any grievance against the possession of the properties by various
lessees. The purchase certificate obtained by most of them are under
Section 72-K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In other words, nobody
has any grievance about the properties being owned and enjoyed by
the lessees. On merits, we find no ground to deviate from the common
judgment that the Certificate of purchase issued under the K.L.R.Act
cannot be interfered with by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers
under Section 18 of the HR&CE Act. Since we are agreeing with the
findings of the Division Bench, we do not find any ground to interfere
with the common judgment in review. Moreover there is no one, not even
a devotee aggrieved by the loss of property to the temple.. Since we find
no ground to condone the delay in filing the review petitions and it is also
not explained properly by the State, we dismiss the delay petitions and
consequently the review petitions.
3. The writ petition is an offshoot for the proceedings initiated by
the Commissioner against the lessees for the reason that the petitioner in
the Writ petition supported the case of the Lessees/land owners, taking
the stand that the temple is not a public temple. We do think the
petitioner in the Writ petition can proceed against the Commissioner for
a remedy in this regard . It is for the Commissioner to establish whether
the temple is a public temple or not and if so in accordance with the
W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -4-
&
Connected cases.
procedure recognised under the HR & CE Act etc. Since the Division
Bench in the common judgment has left open the issue, we are leaving
open this issue, with a direction to the Commissioner to decide as and
when it arises. Accordingly we allow the Writ petition No. 180/2005
setting aside Ext.P4 memo of charges.
4. The Government Pleader pointed out that the temple is notified
as a public temple in the year 1994. We do not want to go into the legality
or correctness of the notification declaring that the temple is a public
temple because the writ petitioner has not challenged the notification and
since the prayer in the writ petition is mainly to set aside Ext.P4 memo
of charges issued against the petitioner,we allow this prayer by setting
aside Ext.P4. In this context, we are of the view that there is no need for
us to decide whether the temple is a public temple or not. It is open to
the Commissioner to decide whether the temple is a public temple or a
private one .
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE)
(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)
es.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.
—————————
W.P(C) No. 180 of 2005
and
R.P No.9 of 2005 in O.P No. 6288 of 1988
and
R.P No. 43 of 2005 in O.P No. 6919 of 1988
and
R.P No. 47 of 2005 in O.P No. 6707 of 1988
and
R.P No. 90 of 2005 in O.P No. 8803 of 1988
—————————-
JUDGMENT
23rd September, 2008