IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17022 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.V.MOHANAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT VEETTILAYIL HOUSE, THAIKKAD P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, THRISSUR. ADDL. RESPONDENTS: 5. GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, GURUVAYUR REP. BY ITS SECRETARY C.V.VIJAYAN. 6. K.G.SUKUMARAN MASTER, AGED 75, S/O.K.GOVINDAN, EAST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR DIST. (ADDL. 5TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.27.8.2009 IN I.A.10484/2009.) (ADDL. 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT.20.5.2010 IN I.A. NO.5252/2010.) ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R2 G.P. SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYAN FOR R1 SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR ADDL.R5 SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR ADDL.R5 SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO.12705 OF 2009, WPC NO.2396 OF 2010 & WPC NO. 6173 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.34465/2008 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT.6.2.2009. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION (28 POINT PROGRAMME) DT. NIL. P3: TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE FOR SETTLEMENT OF LAND ACQUISITION PROBLEMS OF GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM HELD ON 5.11.2009. P4: TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT.20.7.2009 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATOR OF GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM AND THE SAKHAMBARI TRUST. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(a): TRUE COPY OF FRESH MINUTES DT.22.7.2009. R1(b): TRUE COPY OF G.O. DT.2.11.2009. R2(a): COPY OF ORDER IN R.P. NO.904/2009 AND CONNECTED CASES. R2(b): COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NOS.30473-30474 OF 2009. R5(a): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.11.6.08 IN WPC 16494/04. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) Nos.17022 & 12705 of 2009 & 2396 & 6173 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Prayer in the connected Writ Petitions is for direction to the Guruvayur Devaswom to prepare master plan for the developement of the temple and for it's implementation. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioners and Standing Counsel appearing for the Guruvayur Devaswom. In fact, the Guruvayur Devaswom itself has prepared master plan and the details of it are stated in the counter affidavit. If petitioners have any valuable suggestions, certainly the same should be considered by the managing committee of the Devaswom. We, therefore, dispose of the W.P. directing the managing committee of the Devaswom to consider the suggestions made by the petitioners and others and if any suggestion is acceptable, it is for the Devaswom to accept the same and proceed with the master plan with modification. The master plan necessarily should take into account the 2 facilities available in the Municipality such as roads to which connections from Devaswom roads have to be provided. If Municipality has any suggestion in this regard, it is upto the Municipality to make suggestion to the Guruvayur Deveaswom for preparing the master plan consistent with the Municipality's scheme of development of the area outside the temple premises. 2. Even though some of the petitioners have apprehended acquisition of their land for the development of the temple and have sought for rehabilitation, we do not think there is any need to consider these matters, which can be challenged by aggrieved persons in separate proceedings. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms