SECRETARY, TDB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three cases are on a common issue and therefore they have been heard together and are disposed of accordingly. The core question is regarding the legality of the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the property of a Temple administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board as per which purchase certificate was issued to a party.

(2.) FIRST we will refer to D.B.P.No.21/2009 which is a suo motu proceedings initiated based on TDB - Report No.51 of 2009 in Complaint No.105 of 2008, submitted by the learned Ombudsman appointed for Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards. After considering the report this Court issued notice and the contesting party respondent is additional fourth respondent. The first respondent is the Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board, Thiruvananthapuram, the second respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to Revenue (Devaswom) Department and the third respondent is the Secretary, Temple Advisory Committee, Sree Dharmasastha Temple, Ezhumuttam.

(3.) ANNEXURE I submitted along with the report is another detailed report submitted by the Land Special Officer of the Board, who was also directed by the learned Ombudsman to look into the complaint. The detailed report submitted by him refers to the entire history of the Temple and the alleged illegalities in issuing the purchase certificate. One of the points mentioned in the report is that the land is exempted under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short 'the Act'), being premises of the Temple and thus the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue the purchase certificate. It is also reported that a suo motu proceedings as S.M.P.No.84/1977 was got booked by the Land Tribunal, based on a report by the Special Village Officer. It was finalised within a short span and that the Land Tribunal had ordered the assignment illegally and the tenancy claimed is a false one. Shri Narayanan Nair had filed an earlier O.A. No.234/1970 seeking assignment of the landlord's right in respect of the very same property, which was not seen granted. Learned Ombudsman therefore recommended for settlement of the matter by this Court, since various issues arise for consideration.