Judgments‎ > ‎Case Number‎ > ‎

Devaswom Board Petition

D.B.P. No. 38 of 2011 - T.N. Arjunan Vs. Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple

posted Sep 24, 2012, 6:01 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated Sep 24, 2012, 6:01 AM ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan & K. Vinod Chandran

D.B.P. No. 38 of 2011

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2012

Head Note:-

Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act, 1950 - Land Endowment Scheme - The complaint relates to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple - Money was collected from the devotees by a temple advisory committee consisting of three members - Can be managed only by the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Held:- The acquisition on behalf of that Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilizing funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the "Land Endowment Scheme", a conglomeration of well-minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, we cannot but hold that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by Exhibit R3(b) document No. 6540/2006, is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilizing the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. Travancore Devaswom Board holds all properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act, 1950. Necessary governance consequences would follow. In the result, in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the constitution and by virtue of the supervisory control being exercised by this Court in relation to the Devaswom Boards and properties of Devaswoms and Temples, it is declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document no. 6540/2006 dated 30.11.2006 and all structures standing thereon vests absolutely in the deity of the Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can be managed only by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including the Perumballoor Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the TDB on behalf of the deity. By reason of this declaration, the revenue authorities concerned shall issue necessary orders effecting mutation in favour of the TDB or the deity, as the case may be, to have that parcel, included in the appropriate revenue records.

For Respondents:- 

  • G. Biju, Standing Council
  • K.M. Venugopala Panicker (SC)
  • K. Mohanakannan
  • Krishnakumar Mangot (AC)

O R D E R


Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.


1. This DBP is registered on the basis of tdb Report No. 39 of 2011 of learned Ombudsman, generated on a complaint by Sri. T.N. Arjunan and others, we have perused that report and the documents made available therewith.


2. The complaint relates to purchase of 20 cents of land in front of Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple. That parcel was purchased utilizing money collected from the devotees. The Temple Thanthri inaugurated that collection scheme ''കൈപ്പിള്ളി കാവിലമ്മക്ക് ഒരടി മണ്ണ്". Money was collected from the devotees by a temple advisory committee consisting of three members. However, Somanathan, who was dealing with the affairs of the Temple Advisory committee, and Madhusoodanan drew up and registered a Trust in the name "Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust" and the land was purchased in the name of that Trust utilizing the aforesaid funds.


3. Notice was issued to Somanathan, Secretary of the aforesaid Trust. The justification in his counter affidavit is that though contributions were collected from public, the members of the Trust had also contributed funds and the property is purchased for the purpose of providing facilities to the devotees of the temple, it is contended that certain structures like toilets etc. have been put up and the land would not be properly managed if put under control of the Devaswom Board authorities.


4. The substance emanating out of the materials available in this case is that collections were made by issuing receipts with the caption "ക്ഷേത്രത്തിന്റെ മുന്നിലുള്ള  സ്ഥലം വാങ്ങുന്നതിനുള്ള ധനശേഖരണര്‍ത്ഥം". The receipts available at Annexures A and B along with the report of the learned Ombudsman are issued on 08-09-2006 by the "Convenor, Land Endowment Scheme". Obviously, such amounts were collected on the premise and by making the public believe that the collection is a "ഭൂ സമര്‍പ്പണ പദ്ധതി " in favour of the deity. Exhibit R3(a) deed by which Somanathan and Madhusoodanan constituted a Trust is dated 05-11-2006. We see that the Advocate, who prepared it, has signed it only on 30-11-2006, going by the endorsement under his signature. Thus, even the registration and formation of the so-called Trust is more than two months after the collection of funds as evidenced by Annexures A and B. It was only on 30-11-2006 that the property was got conveyed in favour of Madhusoodanan, Somanathan and Raveendran on behalf of the Perumballoor Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust. The acquisition on behalf of that Trust is, obviously, in the form of a dedication to the deity of the temple concerned and such dedication has been made utilizing funds collected from the public at large, that too, by an entity acting on behalf of the people who were prepared to make such dedication. For such collection, receipts have been issued by the Convenor of the "Land Endowment Scheme", a conglomeration of well-minded devotees. It has to be presumed that the benefit of such collection is for the purpose of the deity. Under such circumstances, we cannot but hold that the extent of 20 cents of land covered by Exhibit R3(b) document No. 6540/2006, is an item of property which stands dedicated in favour of the deity and the purchase of the land utilizing the amounts was only for the sake of; in favour of; and, in the course of dedication to, the deity. Travancore Devaswom Board holds all properties of the temples under its control, in terms of the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious institutions Act, 1950. Necessary governance consequences would follow.


5. In the result, in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the constitution and by virtue of the supervisory control being exercised by this Court in relation to the Devaswom Boards and properties of Devaswoms and Temples, it is declared that the land covered by the aforesaid document no. 6540/2006 dated 30.11.2006 and all structures standing thereon vests absolutely in the deity of the Kaippillikkavu Bhagavathi Temple and those properties can be managed only by the Travancore Devaswom Board. Any person occupying such property, including the Perumballoor Sree Bhagavathi Seva Trust, shall cease to occupy that parcel and it will be exclusively under the management and control of the TDB on behalf of the deity. By reason of this declaration, the revenue authorities concerned shall issue necessary orders effecting mutation in favour of the TDB or the deity, as the case may be, to have that parcel, included in the appropriate revenue records.


DBP ordered accordingly.


D.B.P. No. 96 of 2012 - Suo Motu Vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, (2012) 248 KLR 673 : 2012 (2) KLJ 574

posted May 5, 2012, 4:19 AM by Law Kerala   [ updated Jun 9, 2012, 7:46 AM ]

(2012) 248 KLR 673 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

 
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR 
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/22ND CHAITHRA 1934 
DBP.No. 96 of 2012 () 
-------------------------------- 
(IN THE MATTER OF COCHIN/TRAVANCORE/MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARDS- GUIDELINES REGARDING CONDUCT OF VEDIVAZHIPAPDU IN TEMPLES UNDER THE BOARDS -SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS INITIATED-REG:-) 
............ 
PARTIES:- 
--------------- 
1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY TIS SECRETARY , THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN 
2. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BIJU, SC TDB. 
3. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. BY SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN, SC M.D.B. 
4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.RAMAPRASAD UNNI BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR MANGOT, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE OMBUDSMAN 
THIS DEVASWOM BOARD PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss 

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. 
---------------------------------------- 
DBP.No.96 of 2012 
---------------------------------------- 
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2012 
Head Note:-
Devaswom - Directions regulating the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina" (fire works) in different temples - Held, there is no intelligible differentia to classify temples depending upon its management, genesis, ownership or trusteeship, to fall within the laws governing the use of explosives, including use of gun powder, in the State of Kerala. Therefore, it is ordered that all directions contained in the judgment dated 30.3.2012 in W.P.(C)No.6412 of 2012 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012 will apply on all fours to all temples under TDB and those falling within the jurisdiction of MDB.  
Devaswom - Directions regulating the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina" (fire works) in different temples - Held, the specific direction does not, in any manner, dilute the responsibility of the State of Kerala to see that there is no use of fire works including "Adirvettu or Kadina" in any place within the State of Kerala, except in accordance with the provisions of the Explosives Act and the Explosives Rules, in terms of the interpretation given to those Rules as noted in the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6412 of 2012 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012. The liability to enforce the laws in this regard shall be the personal responsibility and liability of all Government servants.

ORDER 
"C.R." 

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 

This matter comes up being registered suo motu in terms of the directions contained in judgment dated 30.3.2012 in W.P.(C) No.6412 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012

2. Read the aforesaid common judgment. It contains clear directions regulating the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina" (fire works) in different temples. We do not find any differential in the yardsticks to be applied in the use of "Adirvettu or Kadina", wherever it be, in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Malabar Devaswom Board (MDB) have rightly pointed out through their learned counsel that they have no objection in the implementation of the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment to all situations and temples falling under the control of TDB and MDB. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for MDB that there are no temples directly administered by it, except a few. Be that as it may, we find that there is no intelligible differentia to classify temples depending upon its management, genesis, ownership or trusteeship, to fall within the laws governing the use of explosives, including use of gun powder, in the State of Kerala. 

3. Therefore, it is ordered that all directions contained in the judgment dated 30.3.2012 in W.P.(C)No.6412 of 2012 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012 will apply on all fours to all temples under TDB and those falling within the jurisdiction of MDB. 

4. We also clarify that the aforesaid specific direction does not, in any manner, dilute the responsibility of the State of Kerala represented by the Chief Secretary and all officers under his command, including those in the departments of Revenue, Police, Fire Force and other Departments to see that there is no use of fire works including "Adirvettu or Kadina" in any place within the State of Kerala, except in accordance with the provisions of the Explosives Act and the Explosives Rules, in terms of the interpretation given to those Rules as noted in the aforesaid judgment in W.P.(C)No.6412 of 2012 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012. We also state, as a principle of law, that the liability to enforce the laws in this regard shall be the personal responsibility and liability of all Government servants involved in ensuring that there is no violation of the Explosives Act and Rules. Failure to discharge such duty could invite penal action, even under IPC. Let all Government servants concerned stand reminded of this.

This DBP is ordered accordingly. A copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6412 of 2012 and DBA Nos.1 to 9 of 2012 shall be appended to this order and shall be issued as part of this order. 

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge 
Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge 
TKS/11.4.2012 

1-2 of 2