COCHIN TIRUMALA DEVASWOM Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A religious institution of Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community has filed this writ petition pointing out the difficulties that are faced by them in the matter of receiving the statutory annuity payable by the Government. Mr. Prabhu appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the recognized legal rights, it has become necessary that the writ petitions are required to be filed every year for opening the eyes of the respondent and this Court should particularly take note of the said predicament.

(2.) The Government had by Ext.P1 letter, as early as on 21.3.1998, informed the Devaswom that it was not necessary on the part of the petitioner-Devaswom to make applications to the Government every year, but would be possible for them to draw the amount from the treasury every year, without procedural formalities and had thus recognised the entitlement and responsibility. Mr. Prabhu submits that in spite of the above, there was non-co-operation from the Department. On the other hand, there were instructions to the petitioner to produce certificates recognizing them as a religious institution. This, according to the counsel, was harassment as their basic rights already stood recognized. It is a temple of status and standing and kanam properties were lost to them by the impact of the Land Reforms Act. The payment of annuity was a statutory duty of the Government to be made in perpetuity. When rights for receiving annuity had been so recognised, such payments are to be made regularly and it would be infra dig to suggest that the Devaswom authorities are to plead every year for such payment with begging bowl, for the lords to condescend.

(3.) The Land Reforms Act was a successor to the Kerala Agrarian relations Act, 1960, which had been introduced duly taking notice of the omissions the said statute suffered. The Government had felt that a mere amending legislation would not be sufficient an that it would be more appropriate to enact a fresh legislation, replacing the existing Act. Government had given a more equitable and fairer consideration to the cause of the landlords and intermediaries, who ultimately were to be dispossessed by the holdings.