IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 766 of 2009(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.34465/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, MANAGING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR. By ADV. SRI U.K.RAMAKRISHNAN (Sr.) BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON(SC) SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.VIJAYAKUMAR ALIAS VIJAYAN, S/O.PALISSERY KAMALAKSHI AMMA. 2. SREEREKHA ALIAS REKHA, W/O.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, BOTH RESIDING AT NEELIMA, KARAKKAD ROAD, GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (DEVASWOM), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI V.CHITAMBARESH, (SR.) SRI P.RAMACHANDRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2009, ALONG WITH RP NOS. 876, 893, 904, 905 & RP 906 OF 2009 IN WPC 16494/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------- R.P. No.766/2009 in WPC No.34465 of 2008 R.P.No.876 of 2009 in R.P.1389/2008 R.P.No.893 of 2009 in RP.1387/2008 RP 904 of 2009 in RP 166 of 2009 RP 905 of 2009 in RP 1391 of 2008 & RP No.906/09 in RP 1390/08 in WPC 16494/2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated, the 18th day of September, 2009 ORDER Ramachandran Nair, J. The Review Petitions are filed by the petitioner against common judgment, wherein this Court stated that the temple pond is outside the temple compound. According to the review petitioner which is the Devaswom, the temple pond is an integral part of the temple and therefore temple compound in that side of the temple is up to the compound wall of the temple pond. We notice that what is stated was only an observation in the judgment and not any finding with reference to any pond of the temple. Admittedly, in the south eastern corner of the temple, there R.P.No.766/09 and connected cases. -:2:- was a pond which is outside the temple compound. The contention of the review petitioner is that the temple pond referred by them is on the northern side where the Melsanthi takes bath before entering the Sanctum Sanctorum. It is also stated to be the temple pond where Arattu takes place and Melsanthi and devotees take bath. Therefore the pond on the northern side of the temple is an integral part of the temple within its compound and therefore the outside compound wall of the temple in that portion is the northern compound wall of the temple pond. We dispose of the review petitions clarifying this position. However, the respondents have pointed out that the acquisition up to 100 metres outside the outer compound wall of the temple pond is excessive and is not required for the temple. This is a matter which has to be agitated by the aggrieved persons as and when acquisitions are proceeded with beyond the requirements of the temple. In any case, no further clarification is required because this court in earlier judgment which was confirmed by the R.P.No.766/09 and connected cases. -:3:- Supreme Court held that acquisition up to 100 metres outside the temple compound wall is permissible. The Review Petitions are disposed of. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- R.P.No.766/09 and connected cases. -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..