IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18714 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION REGD.NO.316/57 GURUVAYUR REP BY ITS SECRETARY C.V.VIJAYAN, S/O.C.P.VELAYUDHAN. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEVASWOM AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM. 2. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, TRADE BUILDING, CHALAKUZHY ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO,TRIVANDRUM. 3. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR. 4. THE ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ,GURUVAYUR. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON SC FOR GDB FOR R3,4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 18714/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 17.08.2007 VIDE RESOLUTION nO. 154 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.176/2007/GDC DATED 28.02.2008 ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE HELD ON 10.12.2008 VIDE RESOLUTION `NO.117. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM ADMINISTRATOR TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 04.02.2009. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.136/2009/GDC DATED 15.062009 ACCORDING SANCTION FOR EFFECTING SALE OF DEVASWOM PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 5 CENTS EACH TO 11 FAMILIES. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 26.06.2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner is challenging the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom and the sanction stated as accorded by the Commissioner to sell the property belonging to the Devaswom, to the families evicted pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings (as part of the rehabilitation measures), alleging violation of Section 11 (3) of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978 and Rule 12 (4) of the Rules thereunder. 2. The petitioner is an Association of Employees of the Guruvayur Devaswom and it is stated as engaged in championing the cause of fighting against the alleged mal-administration, misuse of the Devaswom funds and thus to protect the interest of the Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple. The specific case of the petitioner is that, though the property within a specified radius from the outer wall of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple on the 'south nada' was acquired by the Guruvayur Devaswom, invoking the provisions under the Land WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 2 : acquisition Act, paying the compensation as prescribed, steps are being taken to allot and assign the land of the Devaswom, by conveying 5 cents each to the evictees, at 'Thuruthikad paramba' which is having a total extent of 12.7 acres. It is contended that the aforesaid steps being taken, allegedly as part of the rehabilitation measures, cannot be pursued any further, since the properties have been acquired paying huge compensation under the Land Acquisition Act and also when the cases preferred by the owners of the property for enhancement of the compensation are still pending. 3. With regard to the facts and events, it is to be noted that the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple is an ancient temple of unique importance and it owns large extents of properties and endowments, attracting millions of devotees from all corners in India and abroad. In order to facilitate proper administration and management of the Temple, its properties and endowments, the State enacted the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1971. But the operative portion of the said Act happened to be struck down by this Court in O.P. 314/1973 as violative of Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, which led to enactment of the Guruvayur Devaswom Act, 1978. By virtue of Section 3 of the said Act, the administration, control and management of the Devaswom stand vested with a Committee, namely, Guruvayur Devaswom Managing WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 3 : Committee constituted under Section 4. The alienation of the Devaswom property is dealt with under Section 11 of the Act and specific sanction of the Devaswom Commissioner is required to be obtained in the manner prescribed therein, read with Rule 12 of the relevant Rules thereunder; lest the transfer of the property should become null and void. 4. Earlier, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in O.P. 314/1973, the property within a radius of 100 metres from the outer wall of the Temple was decided to be acquired for better administration and management of the Temple, considering the difficulties and hardships being faced by the general public. The decision rendered by this Court was subjected to challenge by the aggrieved persons before the Apex Court, where interference was declined and the same has become final by virtue of the decision in C.K.Rajan Vs. State of Kerala and others, reported in AIR 1994 Kerala 179. Initially, the properties within the radius of 25 meters from the outer wall of the Temple were intended to be acquired. Considering the hardships of the people who had to be evicted from the premises and who were very much connected with the Temple some way or the other, it was decided as a matter of policy, to acquire some land elsewhere, so as to rehabilitate the evictees. Accordingly, necessary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 01.10.1999. After complying with the formalities, the said land WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 4 : was acquired by the Devaswom for rehabilitating the evictees as above; to provide parking for vehicles and to arrange necessary facilities/infrastructure to the pilgrims. This property known as 'Thuruthikad paramba', situated very near to the Guruvayur Railway station, is having an extent of about 12.7 acres. 5. While so, the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee, in its meeting held on 07.08.2007 decided to rehabilitate those who lost their property in the process of acquisition in the 'south nada' and accordingly, sanction of the second respondent was decided to be sought for as per Ext.P1 resolution dated 17.08.2007, so as to allot 5 cents each to the respective house owners, after collecting the value of the land to be fixed by the District Collector. The second respondent/Commissioner, vide Ext.P2, thought it fit to grant sanction, with intent to avoid the L.A.R. cases seeking for enhancement of compensation. It is stated that some other hurdles were pointed out in the meanwhile, which made the Managing Committee to pass Ext.P3 resolution on 10.12.2008 seeking to modify Ext.P2. It was accordingly, that the second respondent passed Ext.P5 dated 15.06.2009 giving consent for sale of the Devaswom property having an extent of 5 cents each, to the 11 families who were evicted from the 'south nada'. 6. The decision taken by the Committee and the sanction given WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 5 : by the second respondent Commissioner were to the chagrin of the petitioner, who filed Ext.P6 representation and approached this Court seeking for immediate interference. The averments and allegations in the Writ Petition have been rebutted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4, where it has been categorically stated that the very 'Thuruthikad paramba' was acquired mainly for the purpose of rehabilitating the families evicted from the vicinity of the Temple. It is also pointed out that there is no violation of any statutory prescription and that the allegations raised to the contrary are quite wrong and misconceived. 7. As noted above, it has been made clear in paragraph 3 of the above counter affidavit that the land at 'Turuthikad paramaba' was acquired mainly for the purpose of rehabilitating the evictees of the proposed acquisition within 100 mts from the outer wall of the Temple and this being the position, the allegation as to the violation of the statutory requirements under Section 11 and Rule 12 (4) of Guruvayur Devaswom Act and the Devaswom Rules respectively, is stated as far-fetched and against the actual facts and figures. It has been pointed out in paragraph 5 and elsewhere in the counter affidavit that, when the 'first phase' of the acquisition of 25 mts around the Temple was undertaken, persons who had shops in the said area were rehabilitated, providing bunks at the 'Managalya Complex', and it was adopting the very same yardstick, that WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 6 : the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee decided to provide 5 cents each at 'Turuthikad paramba' to the concerned families who were evicted from the 'south nada'; also taking note of the fact that they were traditional workers of the Devaswom and that their service could not be dispensed with. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the allotment is being made after obtaining necessary sanction from the second respondent; that the Devaswom has not executed any sale deed and will not act against the interest of the devotees as alleged; that the rehabilitation process is still to be materialised and that the Guruvayur Devaswom will follow all the norms, procedure and the formalities before implementation of the Scheme (paragraph 10 and 11). It is further added that the step for rehabilitating the evicted persons can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be against the interest of the Guruvayur Devaswom; more so when, the families evicted from the 'south nada' were traditional workers of the Temple and have been taking part in the Temple rituals and other activities for a long time (paragraph 12). 8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the Writ Petition and pointing out that the land in question at 'Turuthikad paramba' has already been decided to be utilised by the Devaswom for construction of a 'Super Speciality Hospital'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the idea and intention of WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 7 : the petitioner is only to protect and preserve the Devaswom properties and to have it utilised in the best possible manner, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 3 & 4 and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submit that the allegations raised by the petitioner are contrary to the actual facts and figures and that there is absolutely no room for any apprehension as expressed by the petitioner, the steps pursued by the concerned respondents being quite in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. 9. Obviously, Ext.P1, P2 and P3 proceedings which are sought to be quashed in the Writ Petition were taken/passed on 17.08.2007, 28.02.2008 and 10.12.2008 respectively. The basic decision as contained in Ext.P1 (passed on 17.08.2007) is sought to be challenged by the petitioner only after a period of '2 years', for which absolutely no explanation has been offered in the Writ Petition. After considering Ext.P1 resolution, the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P2 conveyed that sanction was being given to allot the land for rehabilitation, at the cost price to be fixed by the Government and that, the said step was with the specific intent to avoid the possible Land Acquisition cases and other litigations seeking for enhancement of the compensation; which cannot be said as contrary to the interest of the Devaswom. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent passed WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 8 : Ext.P3 resolution on 10.12.2008, as to the further course of action with regard to the allotment of land in 'Thuruthikad paramba', to the concerned families, for which the price fixed by the Government was stated as Rs.90,783/- per cent in respect of the 5 cents to be allotted to each family. After considering the legal and factual position brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P5 on 15.06.2009 granting fresh sanction for the purpose of rehabilitation of the 11 families who had executed necessary 'agreements' (as stipulated in item No.3 referred to therein, i.e., Ext.P2 order passed by the very same respondent on 28.02.2008). This means, the agreement has been executed in terms of Ext.P2, with intent to avoid the LA reference cases and other litigations seeking for enhancement of compensation. The steps taken by the concerned respondents can never be said as detrimental to the interest of the Devaswom in any manner and the question of rehabilitation in proper cases is purely a matter of policy decision, which is not liable to be interfered by this Court. This is more so, when the allotment of plot is stated as on the basis of the price to be fixed by the Government and subject to no loss, to be caused to the Government or the Devaswom in any manner. 10. With regard to the alleged violation of the statutory prescription under Section 11 (3) and Rule 12 (4) and as to the WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 9 : procedural formalities to be complied with, before granting sanction by the Commissioner, it has to be borne in mind that the said provisions are more to bring it to the notice of all concerned, as to the proposed move to effect the transaction, with clear idea as to the identity of the property, inviting objections, to have acted upon in an appropriate manner. When challenge is raised with regard to the proposed alienation of the land (at the rate of 5 cents each to the evicted families) by way of rehabilitation, the petitioner quite conveniently forgot the fact that the very property in 'Thuruthikad paramba' was acquired, also for the purpose of rehabilitation of the persons who were to be evicted from the premises within the stipulated radius from the outer wall of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple, pursuant to acquisition. The learned Government Pleader also placed the relevant 'File' before this Court, which contains the notification dated 01.10.1999 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act published in different Dailies. The said notification clearly reveals the 'public purpose' of acquisition, i.e. to rehabilitate the people who were to be evicted on acquiring the land within the specified radius from the outer wall of Guruvayur Sreekrishna Temple; among other things. Admittedly, the above notification or the said 'public purpose' of rehabilitation, to be satisfied on acquiring the property as above, is not under challenge. The petitioner has no case that the decision taken by the Managing WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 10 : Committee of the Guruvayur Devaswom Board, more than a decade back, to provide for rehabilitation as above, by acquiring necessary extent of properties and the subsequent proceedings including the notification in connection with the acquisition were challenged from their side in any manner. Thus, after acquiring the property at 'Thuruthikad paramba', also for providing rehabilitation to the evicted families pursuant to the acquisition around the outer wall of the Guruvayur Temple, it is no more open for the petitioner to contend now, that no such alienation of the land for rehabilitation is permissible. The proposed rehabilitation very much involves a 'public purpose' and the acquisition for the said public purpose has become final. 11. It was incidentally brought to the notice of this Court that the price fixed by the Government for allotment of land in 'Thuruthikad paramba', though as a measure of rehabilitation, at the rate of Rs.90,783/- as mentioned in Ext.P3 is abysmally low and it will cause much loss and hardships to the Devaswom. It is stated that the price fixed as above, was calculated on the basis of the cost incurred for the acquisition of the concerned properties at 'Thuruthikad paramba'. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the cases pursuant to the acquisition of the land in 'Thuruthikad paramba' seeking for enhancement of compensation have not become final and that the total 'cost' can be WP(C) No. 18714 of 2009 : 11 : ascertained only after finalisation of all the reference cases/ Appeals/SLPs, if any. This Court finds some force in the said submission and as such, makes it clear that, while executing the sale deeds, it has necessarily to be incorporated therein, that the price fixed is only 'tentative' and without prejudice to the right of the Devaswom/Government to have it finalised, refixed and the balance demanded on culmination of all the land acquisition cases, along with such other necessary provisions to safeguard the interest of the Devaswom in this regard. The challenge raised against Ext.P1 to P3 and P5 is held as unsustainable. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc