IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14319 of 2010(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. REV.FR.JOSEPH MURINGATHERY, VICAR, ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, AMMADAM, PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,TRICHUR TALUK,TRICHUR DISTRICT. 2. FR.JOY KOOTHUR, ST.MARY'S CHURCH, PALLISSERY. 3. A.A. DAVIS, S/O.A.O.ANTONY, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.AMMADAM. 4. M.A. OUSEPH,S/O.M.O.ANTOY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O,AMMADAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SRI.HARISH R. MENON. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PARALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PARALAM, TRICHUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,TRICHUR. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE, THRISSUR. WP(C).No. 14319 of 2010(L) 6. THE DIRECTOR,DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-23. 7. B. BALAMOHANAN, DOCUMENTATION OFFICER, ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, THRISSUR. *ADDL. R8 TO R11 IMPLEADED ADDL. R8: A.L. ANTONY, S/O.LONAPPAN, AGED 59, RESIDING AT ALAPPATTU HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 574. ADDL. R9: A.A. JAMES, S/O.LATE ANTONYKUTTY, AGED 58, ADAMBUKULAM HOUSE, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 574. ADDL. R10: E.A. JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 50, ELUVATHINGAL PADARAN HOUSE, KODANNUR P.O., THRISSUR-680 574. ADDL. R11: MOTHI D.PALLISSERRY, S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 42, PELLISSERRY HOUSE, AMMADAM P.O., PIN-680 563. *ARE IMPLEADED, VIDE ORDER DATED 03/06/2010 IN I.A.7130/2010. R2 TO R4 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SRI.B.SAJEEV KUMAR. R5 BY ADV. SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC. ADDL.R8 TO R11SRI.GEORGE KURUVILLA (ALAPPUZHA). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14319 of 2010(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARALAM. EXT.P1(a): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CHURCH COMMITTEE HELD ON 01/07/1928. EXT.P1(b): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THAT DOOM WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 1954. EXT.P1(c): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING THAT FRONT ELEVATION WAS CONTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 1954. EXT.P1(d): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT DIALAPIDATED CONDITION OF THE ROOF OF THE CHURCH. EXT.P1(e): COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PRESENT DILAPIDATED CONDITION OF THE BELL TOWER. EXT.P1(f): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE PWD ENGINEER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION AND BUILDING PLAN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPROVAL NO.168/2010/S/CHA DATED 10/03/2010 THUS ISSUED BY THE CHANCELLOR, CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP'S HOUSE, TRICHUR. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03/02/2010 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SOUVENIR PUBLISHED BY THE PARISH IN THE YEAR 2003. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A7 1754/10/DA DATED 28/04/2010 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECOTRATE OF ARCHAELOGY ALONGWITH REPORT DATED 30/03/2010 SUBMITTED BY SRI.HEMACHANDRAN. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER (EXCLUDING ANNEXURE). EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAELOGIST, ARCHAELOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE ALONG WITH LETTER DATED 12/04/2010. WP(C).No. 14319 of 2010(L) EXT.P11(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ARCHAEOLOGIST, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, THRISSUR CIRCLE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER OF SRI.P.C.CHACKO, HONOURABLE M.P. AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (LOK SABHA) TO THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MINSTER, SECRETARY, DIRECTOR, ARCHAEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT AND THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. ANNEXURE-A1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR CULTURAL AFFAIRS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES. ANNEXURE-A2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE ARCHAEOLGY DEPARTMENT. ANNEXURE-A3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGY DEPARTMENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R8(a): COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. EXT.R8(b): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE ARCHAELOGY DEPT. EXT.R8(c): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGY DEPT. EXT.R8(d): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14319 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner is the Vicar of St.Antony's Church, Ammadam. He is representing the Parish Church. The 2nd petitioner is a person authorised by the Vicar and petitioners 3 and 4 are the Convener and Treasurer respectively of the reconstruction committee of the St.Antony's Church, Ammadom. 2. The petitioners have given in detail in paragraph 2 of the Writ Petition, the history and present state of the church building. It is pointed out that the building was constructed long time back in a property having an extent of 73.20 Ares of land comprised in re-survey No.98/5 of Paralam Village. Exhibit P1 is the possession certificate produced in support of the above plea. 3. Later, due to natural calamities and fire, the church was reconstructed in 1920 and finally the present structure came to be established in the year 2003. Exhibits P1(a) to P1(c) are the documents produced in support of the above plea. Various other details of the construction including the damaged portions W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -2- have been described in the remaining part of the same paragraph. 4. It is contended that the entire building requires reconstruction to avoid any further mishap. The petitioners therefore thought of constructing a new church building after demolishing the present one as reconstruction of some portions will not save the purpose also. By Exhibit P3 the Chancellor, Catholic Archbishop's House, Thrissur, approved the same. 5. It is at this stage that certain complaints were raised against the reconstruction of the church on the plea that because of the ancient nature of the construction, it is to be protected as a monument by the respective Governments, namely the Central Government and the State Government. 6. It appears that the petitioners and the contesting respondents were seized of the said dispute and various representations have been filed by the interested parties before different authorities also. 7. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition has been filed seeking for a direction commanding the first respondent to issue building permit for reconstruction of the W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -3- St.Antony's Church, Ammadam. It is also pointed out in the Writ Petition that the construction of a Church, namely, a new church building requires no objection from the District Collector and accordingly the petitioners pray for a direction to the 4th respondent to issue no objection certificate for reconstruction of the church. Finally, a declaration is sought for that the existing structure of St.Antony's Church not liable to be declared as a protected monument in view of the present dilapidated condition and in view of Exhibit P11(a) certificate that the existing structure has no historical or archaeological or artistical importance. 8. The contesting party respondents have disputed this claim made by the petitioners herein. The learned counsel appearing for the said respondents submitted that the Archaeological Department has initiated certain proceedings to declare the church building as a protected monument and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government and State Government, it has been W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -4- explained that no steps have been taken to declare the building of the church as a protected monument and therefore the objection raised with regard to the new construction of the building is no longer there and a direction may be issued to the Panchayat to issue building permit and the District Collector to issue the No Objection Certificate. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the additional respondents 8 to 11 that it is upto the Panchayat and District Collector to consider the matter in accordance with the Rules and prescribed procedure and therefore there need not be a direction to issue permit or no objection certificate as sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, it is mentioned in paragraph 3 that as per the inspection report submitted by the Assistant Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, no epigraphical or other written documents or any history of construction of the present church is noticed to show that it is of more than 100 years of age. The church building has gone through many alterations, additions and retouching of many parts, particularly the Altar and main prayer W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -5- hall and other architectural components. The tombs in the church did not produce any evidence that the church and other architectural components are more than 100 years. It is also mentioned that the Local Tahslidar has made a request for inspection of the church which was done by the 5th respondent on 10.4.2010. It is his opinion that the inspection reveals that it is a modern construction. Accordingly, it is mentioned finally in paragraph 6 that Archaeological Survey of India has nothing to do in the matter. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government also it is mentioned that the present church structure is not an old structure and the old structure was destroyed due to natural calamities and fire. With regard to the claim to name it as a protected monument, it is mentioned in paragraph 3 that the according to the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968, a structure having more than 100 years old and having archaeological importance has to be conserved. Because of the complaints, the Director of Archeology called for a report regarding the reconstruction of the church building from one W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -6- Shri B.Balamohanan, Documentation Officer, Sakthan Thampuran Palace Museum, who is the additional 7th respondent herein. He conducted a visit to the church on 2.2.2010 and reported that the church had to be protected. The report submitted to the Director, Department of Archeology by Retd. Superintending Archaeologist Dr.S. Hemachandran also recommended notifying the church as a protected monument. It is mentioned that later, the Government constituted a Committee consisting of a Convener, namely Director of Archeology and two other persons to enquire and submit a report. They reported that the church has no historical or archaeological importance to be declared as a protected monument. The Government found that the provisions of Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968 are not attracted to the case of the church and decided not to take further action to declare the church as a protected monument. 12. In the light of the above, the complaints if any raised by the additional respondents or party respondents that the church should be declared as a protected monument may not stand in the way of the Panchayat and District Collector W.P.(C)No.14319/10 -7- considering the application for issuing the building permit and the no objection certificate. The same has to be done in terms of the relevant rules and Government Orders with regard to the requirement to issue no objection certificate by a District Collector. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat can consider the application only if the no objection certificate is issued by the District Collector. Therefore, it is upto the authorities of the Panchayat and the District Collector to consider the applications and take appropriate decision. The same shall be done after hearing a representative of the petitioners and additional respondents 8 to 11, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn True copy P.A. to Judge