Duty Of Courts To Safeguard Properties Of Religious Institutions From Wrongful Claims: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.
"Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation."
The developments ensued in a suo motu case initiated by the Court against the issue of the constructions in the Pamba area which was reported in a Malayalam daily, Mathrubhumi.
The news article had stated that the Travancore Board had leased out the said area to Shri Nandkishore Bajoria Charitable Trust to conduct a programme called "Ramkatha" by Morari Bapu, a spiritual Guru and exponent of 'Ramacharithamanasam'. The trust insisted on conducting the recital at this spot citing religious significance of the same.
The trust had sought permission to use the space for setting up tents, parking space, to telecast the event and even for a use of helipad at Nilakkal and proposed the Board ₹7 lakh as offerings, out of which ₹3 lakh was already paid. Upon the Board granting permission, the trust began constructions at the space.
Senior Government Pleader S. Rajmohan argued that the land at Pamba was leased out to the Board for the specific purpose of pilgrim support which cannot be used for any other purpose, including the Ramkatha programme.
The Court found merit in this contention after perusing the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act, 1965.
Further, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board to reiterate that the properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards are required to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees, archakas, shebaits or employees.
In this decision, it was also emphasised that it is the duty of the courts to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the religious and charitable institutions.
Additionally, the Bench established that the relevant principles under the Hindu law clearly show that a deity is always treated similar to that of a minor.
Therefore, it was found that the High Court is the guardian of the deity and that apart from the jurisdiction under Section 103 of the Land Reforms Act, the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply in exercising its inherent jurisdiction.
After going through the photographs of the ongoing construction made available for consideration, the Court observed that the a major portion of Pamba-Manalppuram was now occupied by the temporary structures, "causing obstruction and inconvenience" to the pilgrims proceeding through there to Sannidhanam at Sabarimala from February 13 for the Kumbamasa Pooja.
As such, the Bench directed for the immediate removal of all such constructions. The Special Commissioner, Sabarimala was also directed to submit a report before the Court as to the measures that have to be taken to ensure that similar incidents are not repeated at Pamba Manalppuram in future.
Standing Counsel for the Board G. Biju, Special Government Pleader (Forests) Nagaraj Narayanan and Amicus Curiae Advocate N. Raghuraj appeared in the matter.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89