IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 180 of 2005(U) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- VADANAPPILLY SANKARAMANGALAM DEVASWOM, VADANAPPILLY, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, PULLAKKUZHI BALAN KAIMAL. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT: ---------------- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, H.R. & C.E. (ADMINISTRATION), CIVIL STATION, CALICUT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 9 OF 2005 RP NO. 43 OF 2005 RP NO. 47 OF 2005 RP NO. 90 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits Ext.P1: photocopy of the letter dated 11.10.2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner HR & CE Ext.P2: Photocopy of the reply submitted by the petitioner on 29.10.2004. Ext.P3: Photocopy of the letter sent by the Executive Officer dated 19.11.2004. Ext.P4: Photocopy of the Charge Memo dated 20.12.2004 issued by the respondent Ext.P5: photocopy of the common judgment in O.P 6707/88 dated 05.09.2000 Ext.P6: photocopy of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in O.P 8803/88 dated 13.08.2000 //True copy// es C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 180 of 2005 and R.P No.9 of 2005 in O.P No. 6288 of 1988 and R.P No. 43 of 2005 in O.P No. 6919 of 1988 and R.P No. 47 of 2005 in O.P No. 6707 of 1988 and R.P No. 90 of 2005 in O.P No. 8803 of 1988 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair .J, These review petitions are filed for reviewing the common judgment in a batch of cases rendered by this Court on 5.9.2000 All the review petitions are accompanied by delay condonation petition and the delay is around 5 years. The reasons caused for the delay in filing the review petitions are administrative reasons such as communication gap etc. While considering the delay condonation petitions, we have also considered these cases on merits. 2. The Trust of the Sankaramangalam Devaswom leased out some extent of property to different persons for cultivation. The lands have been held by the lessees and subsequently by their successors. When the Kerala Land Reforms Act came into force, most of the lessees have applied for purchase certificate under the said Act as cultivating tenants. None of the trustees of the Devaswom raised any objections before the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments about the issuance of the purchase certificates. By virtue of the purchse certiifcates they became absolute owners of the property. The learned W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -2- & Connected cases. Government Pleader submitted that sometime in 1985, the then Managing Trustee of the Devaswom filed complaint before the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments stating that Certificate of Purchase have been issued without prior approval of the Commissioner . The Commissioner challenged the issuance of the purchase certificates on the ground that the leases held by some of the lessees are invalid for want of prior sanction from him under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951. Against this order 18 Original Petitions have been filed by the aggrieved persons and a Division Bench of this Court considered the matter in detail and by the common judgment dated 5.9.2000, found that the Commissioner has no authority to unsettle the rights conferred on the lessees who are the then land owners under the K.L.R Act, even though the question whether the temple is a public temple or not was raised before this Court. This Court allowed the Original petitions on the ground that the Commissioner has no authoirty to interfere with the leases held by the lessees. The review petitions are filed by the Commissioner raising the the very same issues which were decided in the original Petitions. The Managing Trusteee of the Devaswom who was in charge at that time appears to have died in 1993 The present Managing trustee who is the petitioner in the connected Writ petition, has no grievance against the extent of property of the Devaswom being enjoyed by the lessees after W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -3- & Connected cases. obtaining certificate of purchase . No other trustees of the Devaswom has any grievance against the possession of the properties by various lessees. The purchase certificate obtained by most of them are under Section 72-K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. In other words, nobody has any grievance about the properties being owned and enjoyed by the lessees. On merits, we find no ground to deviate from the common judgment that the Certificate of purchase issued under the K.L.R.Act cannot be interfered with by the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 18 of the HR&CE Act. Since we are agreeing with the findings of the Division Bench, we do not find any ground to interfere with the common judgment in review. Moreover there is no one, not even a devotee aggrieved by the loss of property to the temple.. Since we find no ground to condone the delay in filing the review petitions and it is also not explained properly by the State, we dismiss the delay petitions and consequently the review petitions. 3. The writ petition is an offshoot for the proceedings initiated by the Commissioner against the lessees for the reason that the petitioner in the Writ petition supported the case of the Lessees/land owners, taking the stand that the temple is not a public temple. We do think the petitioner in the Writ petition can proceed against the Commissioner for a remedy in this regard . It is for the Commissioner to establish whether the temple is a public temple or not and if so in accordance with the W.P (C) No. 180 /2005 -4- & Connected cases. procedure recognised under the HR & CE Act etc. Since the Division Bench in the common judgment has left open the issue, we are leaving open this issue, with a direction to the Commissioner to decide as and when it arises. Accordingly we allow the Writ petition No. 180/2005 setting aside Ext.P4 memo of charges. 4. The Government Pleader pointed out that the temple is notified as a public temple in the year 1994. We do not want to go into the legality or correctness of the notification declaring that the temple is a public temple because the writ petitioner has not challenged the notification and since the prayer in the writ petition is mainly to set aside Ext.P4 memo of charges issued against the petitioner,we allow this prayer by setting aside Ext.P4. In this context, we are of the view that there is no need for us to decide whether the temple is a public temple or not. It is open to the Commissioner to decide whether the temple is a public temple or a private one . (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JUDGE) (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. --------------------------- W.P(C) No. 180 of 2005 and R.P No.9 of 2005 in O.P No. 6288 of 1988 and R.P No. 43 of 2005 in O.P No. 6919 of 1988 and R.P No. 47 of 2005 in O.P No. 6707 of 1988 and R.P No. 90 of 2005 in O.P No. 8803 of 1988 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 23rd September, 2008