IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4822 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MADATHUMPARA SREE AYYAPPA SIVAKSHETHRA PARIPALANA SAMITHI, REG.NO.49/2007, P.O.PAZHOOR MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY V.RAJEEV. BY ADV. SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN SRI.V.ARUN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS & CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, HEAD WORKS SECTION, PAZHOOR P.O., MAVOOR - 673 661. 4. CHIEF MANAGER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, MALAPARAMBA, CALICUT 673 009 5. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. K.E.VIJAYAN, S/O.K.C.V.RAJA, 'SWAYAM PRABHA' KIZHAKKE KOVILAKAM, KINALOOR, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI R.LAKSHMINARAYANAN R3 TO R5 BY SRI M.DINESH, SC FOR KWA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.4822 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Petitioner is a samithi, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, by name Madathumpara Sree Ayyappa Sivakshethra Paripalana Samithi. The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 5 not to interfere with the daily poojas and other rituals in Madathupara Sree Ayyappa Sivakshethram and for a declaration that the said temple is not included in the acquisition proceeding pursuant to Ext.P4 notice. The contention of the petitioner is that for and on behalf of the Water Authority certain lands were acquired as per Ext.P4 notice. But the properties in Sy.No.43/1 of Pazhoor amsom, which were specifically included in the acquisition proceedings, do not take in the temple and its properties. It is further contended that the poojas are conducted in the temple and three days before filing of this writ petition the officials of the 5th respondent obstructed the said poojas being conducted. 2. Learned standing counsel for respondents 3 to 5 was heard in the matter. 3. Admittedly, the owner of the properties is the 6th respondent -2- WP(C).No.4822/2008 from whom the properties were acquired. Whether there exists any temple or whether the temple properties were also part of the acquisition proceedings is a matter which could be decided only after taking evidence, both oral and documentary and after measurement if required. The 6th respondent being the owner of the property has also not come up by filing any writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner's contention is based on Ext.P9, the agreement said to have been executed by the 6th respondent in favour of the Samithi enabling them to conduct the management of the temple. In such circumstances, the proper remedy available to the petitioner for adjudication of the dispute is to file a civil suit and not by way of writ petition. This Court cannot in this summary proceedings take evidence both oral and documentary, and decide the matter and hence we decline jurisdiction. It is open to the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. Status quo as on today shall be maintained for a period of three weeks and thereafter the matter will be governed based on the orders that may be passed by the civil court. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.