Temple & Its Affairs Can Only Be Administered By Trustee: Kerala High Court Affirms Devaswom Board's Authority In Temple Land Dispute

The Kerala High Court on Monday, in a dispute pertaining to the encroachment of 65 cents of land of Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple, laid down that the Travancore Devaswom Board would not be barred from taking action for repossession of the property, although the said parcel of land had not been handed over to the Board, pursuant to the change of trustee of the Temple. 

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reasoned that a temple and its affairs can only be administered by a human agency, which is the trustee of the Deity. 

"A Temple and its affairs can be administered only by a human agency, be it private or public; incorporated or unincorporated. Such agency is the trustee of the Deity. When the Travancore Devaswom Board assumed the Kootholikavu Temple, its legal effect is 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. The Travancore Devaswom Board as the new trustee of the Deity becomes the authority in the management of all such properties of the Deity," the Bench observed. 

It was further added that even if the right to recover possession of the said 65 cents of property is treated as a chose in action, it becomes Devaswom land within the meaning of Section 27 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (TCHRI Act), and thus the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act would get attracted by virtue of the said provision. 

Section 27 of the THCRI Act states that immovable properties entered or classed in the revenue records as Devaswom Vaga or Devaswom Poramboke and such other Pandaravaga lands which are in the possession or enjoyment of the Devaswoms mentioned in Schedule I after 12th April 1922 shall be dealt with as Devaswom properties, and the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 (IV of 1021) shall be applicable to Devaswom lands as in the case of Government lands.

Factual Background

The Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple (a private Temple) was assumed by the Travancore Devaswom Board in 1991. As per the mahazar prepared at the time of assumption, it was stated that only 16 cents of land where the Temple and the Temple pond are situated and 21 cents of land along which the pathway to the Temple exists, were alone taken over by the Board.

The dispute in the present case pertains to the alleged encroachment of 65 cents of land by private entities. The latter contended that that the properties in question were purchased under valid title deeds, and that they had been in possession of the properties since 1942. It was thus argued that the claim on behalf of the Temple over the said properties was untenable. 

Pursuant to the initiation of litigations by the Temple Advisory Committee of the Temple, the Special Tahsildar of the Kerala Land Conservancy Unit was approached for the removal of encroachments from the properties of the Temple. However, the said authority took the stand that since the properties in question do not come within the purview of Section 3 of the Land Conservancy Act, action for summary eviction could not be taken. Appeals before the Sub Collector and the District Collector were dismissed by the Authorities, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue also refused to intervene in the matter stating that the District Collector had taken the decision in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 16(2) of the Land Conservancy Act.

Subsequently, the petitioners had approached the High Court on the ground that the property entered in the name of the Deity could not be transferred by effecting a sale deed and that the Special Tahasildar had desisted from invoking Section 3(1) of the Land Conservancy Act (defining 'Government Property'). It was averred that the land belongs to Devaswom and the Land Conservancy Act would be applicable. The petitioners thus alleged that the Special Tahsildar was not taking effective steps for resuming the properties of the Temple, which was in possession of third parties. The Court had accordingly, directed the parties to solve their issues in an amicable way and further observed, that the hierarchy of authorities under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act could judicially determine the plea for resumption of the Temple property. However, such an amicable solution was not arrived at. 

Subsequently, on the basis of the report of the Ombudsman, the High Court had directed the Special Tahsildar or other competent authority of the Devaswom Board to initiate action either under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act or through a civil suit to be instituted under the CPC before a court of competent jurisdiction. The Court had also clarified that such action shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons now claiming possession and ownership to raise their contentions regarding the maintainability of such proceedings appropriately.

Following the same, the petitioners approached the Special Tahsildar to initiate action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in order to repossess the properties claimed to belong to the Temple. Through the present plea, the petitioners contend that the Orders of the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector are against the Kerala Land Reforms Act and in the wrong exercise of their jurisdiction, and thus prays for the quashing of the Orders. 

Findings of the Court 

The Court in this case noted that the Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board was unable to substantiate that the respondent entities were encroachers within the ambit of Section 3 of the Land Conservancy Act. The Court was of the view that the Board would have to establish its right to recover possession of those properties in a civil suit, if it is to recover possession of those properties. The Court thus proceeded to decide the relied claimed, by giving such a direction and leaving open the contentions of both parties regarding the right and title to the properties. 

The Court noted that as per Section 3 of the TCHRI Act, all properties of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswoms and Hindu Religious Institutions, which were under the management of the Ruler of Travancore prior to the first day of July 1949, as well as the properties of such Temples and management of all institutions which were under the Devaswom Department are vested with the Travancore Devaswom Board.

It thus ascertained that although the Kootholikavu Temple having been assumed by the Travancore Devaswom Board only in 1991, there could not be vesting as per Section 3 of the TCHRI Act, the same does not indicate that no other property can be the Devaswom property so as to attract the provisions of Section 27 of the TCHRI Act. 

The Court thus proceeded to state that by virtue of the Temple's assumption by the Board, all of its properties would become Devaswom land for the purpose of Section 27 of the TCHRI Act. "If a property is vested in or acquired by the Devaswom Board by any other means also it becomes the Devaswom land, and the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act certainly would get attracted," it added. 

As mentioned before, the Court was of the opinion that even if the right to recover possession of the said 65 cents of property was treated as a chose in action, it would become Devaswom land within the meaning of Section 27 of the TCHRI Act, and the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act would apply. 

It thus held that the 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 on the basis that the property was not included in the mahazar is untenable. 

The Court thus quashed the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Special Tahsildar to decide the claim of the petitioners that the disputed 65 cents of property is Devaswom land and possession thereof ought to be restored to the Deity of Kootholikavu Temple

It thereby directed the Special Tahsildar to take a fresh decision in this regard. 

The petitioners were represented by Advocates R. Lakshmi Narayan and R. Rajanie. Senior Government Pleaser S. Rajmohan, Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board G. Santhosh Kumar and Advocate S. Ananthakrishnan appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Kshetra Upadeshaka Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 425 

Case Number: W.P.(C) NO. 13645 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment