Land Conservancy Act Can't Be Invoked To Evict Alleged Encroachers From Private Temples Properties: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict alleged encroachers of private temples, which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Board.The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar dismissed a batch of writ petitions that prayed for a direction to the State to...
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict alleged encroachers of private temples, which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar dismissed a batch of writ petitions that prayed for a direction to the State to remove private persons, who had alleged encroached upon the properties of private temples.
“it is crystal clear that the lands belonging to the Devaswom Boards alone shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. In the instant Writ Petitions the petitioners have no case that any of the Temples would come within the control of the Devaswom Board. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act could not be invoked to evict the occupants or the alleged encroachers of private temples,” the Court observed.
According to the petitioners, the party respondents in the pleas had encroached upon the properties belonging to various private temples and this fact is clear from the revenue records. They contended that inspire of the same, the revenue officials, including the District Collector and subordinate officers, are not taking any steps to remove these encroachers.
The petitioners' counsels relied on various decisions to point out that the properties of deities are to be protected by their trustees. It was contended that once a property is entrusted as Devaswom property, it would forever remain as a Devaswom property, meaning the property of the deity. Moreover, the deity being a perpetual minor, the property entrusted to it cannot be taken away by executing documents.
The petitioners also made a case that Courts are legally bound to protect the interests of the deity exercising parens patriae jurisdiction. Further, it was argued that the State can protect the deity's property by invoking the provisions under the Land Conservancy Act.
Opposing the writ petitions, the government pleaded argued that the petitioners have no locus standi and also that the writ petition is not maintainable. She also contended that the Act's provisions cannot be invoked to evict encroaches from the land of private temples.
The government pleader pointed out that the writ petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, being the trustees/Ooralans of the private temples. Moreover, the alleged encroachers have been in possession of the properties for several decades and they have valid documents to prove their title.
At the outset, the Court considered the question whether the writ petitions are maintainable. It agreed with the respondents that necessary parties have not been arrayed in the pleas:
“In the instant case, the Ooralans/the persons in charge of the affairs of the temple are necessary parties to the Writ Petitions. In their absence, an effective adjudication of the lis may not be possible.”
Next, the Court answered the question as to whether the Apex Court's directions in Mrinalini Padhy v. Union of India would be applicable in the present cases. In Mrinalini Padhy's case, the Supreme Court had observed that Section 92 CPC permits courts to issue direction for formulating schemes for any charitable or religious institution. The issue before the Court was regard to the exploitative practices, lack of hygiene, etc. in Puri Shri Jangannath Temple.
While considering the question, it referred to a co-ordinate Bench's decision in Akshay Krishnan v. State of Kerala that examined the scope and applicability of Mrinalini Padhy case. The petitioner therein had also sought Court's intervention to address the issue of maladministration of a private. It was held that such issues cannot be raised in a writ petition before the High Court and that the same would not come within the general directions of the afore Apex Court decision.
“In view of the judgment in Akshay Krishnan..., we are of the firm view that the general guideline issued by the Apex court in Mrinalini Padhi…cannot be invoked to evict the occupants who allegedly encroached into the property of some private temples,” it added.
Finally, the Court considered the question whether the provisions of Land Conservancy Act can be used to evict alleged encroachers from private property. It referred to Section 50 of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, which deals with applicability of the Land Conservancy Act to unassigned lands of Devaswom under the Board.
The Court found that only properties coming within Devaswom Boards and not that of private temples would be subject to the Conservancy Act. It also took note of the fact the alleged encroachers have been in possession of the properties alleged to be encroached for more than 50 years and they have proper documentation and tax receipts.
Taking note of all these aspects, the Court felt it appropriate to dismiss the pleas.
Case No: W.P.(C) No.25175 of 2020 and connected cases
Case Title: Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
Counsel for the petitioners: R. Krishna Raj, E.S. Soni, Kumari Sangeetha S. Nair, Resmi A., R. Pratheesh (Aranmula), Balasubramaniam R., Sreeraja V., Laxmi Priyaa N.P.
Counsel for the respondents: Philip J. Vettickattu, K.S. Arun Kumar, Jaishankar V. Nair, Shinoj K.N., K.S. Prenjith Kumar, R. Meenakshi, Bea Mary Benny, Sajitha George, Rajee P. Mathews, Amrutha K.P., Vijay Sankar V.H., C.K. Rapheeque, K.B. Nidhinkumar, Neema T.V. - Sr. GP, Sunil Jacob Jose, S. Subhash Chand, P.A. Harish, N.N. Sasi, Sanand Ramakrishnan, Adv, K T Thomas, Krishna Mani, M Balagovindan, K P Sudheer - SC – CDB, P. Narayanan, M. Sasindran, Rashmi K.M - Sr. GP, G. Sreekumar (Chelur), R. Bindu (Sasthamangalam), P.N.Sreenivasan, G.Rajagopal (Kummanam), Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara, Sc, Vinod Singh Cheriyan, P.A.Harish, Srinath Girish, V.V. Surendran, Aswathi C., Sherry M.V., T.M. Khalid, K.P. Susmitha, P. Jeril Babu, G. Santhosh Kumar (P)., P.B. Sahasranaman, T.S. Harikumar, Sanand Ramakrishnan, M. Muhammed Shafi, P.K. Mohamed Jameel, K. Sujai Sathian, K.P. Bhagyesh, Preethi. P.V., M.V. Balagopal, Mary Liya Sabu, Gouri Meempat, Sangeetha Sreekumar, Rajeesh V.R., M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, V. Visal Ajayan, Thareeq Anver, M. Devesh, Rajesh Kumar R., K. John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan, K. Salma Jennath, K.C. Khamarunnisa, Arun Chand, Rassal Janardhanan A., K.T. Thomas, Mathew Bob Kurian, Nikhil Berny, G. Biju – SC - Travancore Devaswom Board, Akhil Suresh, B. Krishna Mani, M. Balagovindan, N.V. Sandhya, Dhanuja M.S., Lal Kumar N.
Amicus Curiae: Mohan C. Menon