REMA DEVI Vs. STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with this petition stating that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 31 cents of property in re-survey No. 550/8 of Pidavoor Village with a shop building. Her sister is also having some property on its southern side. A road is lying on the southern side of her sister's property and a pathway starts from the said road towards north through the western side of both these properties, as access to their properties as well to a Temple known as Thiruvilangonappan Temple, Kamukkum Cherry. In fact, the father of the petitioner had voluntarily surrendered his property for formation of the pathway, which lies on the western side of her property. Recently, the Temple Advisory Committee shifted a Bunk from the Temple property to the building where her shop is situated encroaching and obstructing the public pathway and the access to the shop room of the petitioner. Though she submitted a petition to the 5 th respondent, the Sub Collector, it was forwarded to the 7 th respondent Village Officer for Report. The 7 th respondent thereafter submitted a report stating that the Temple authorities have obstructed to survey the property and so he could not submit a proper report. However, he recommended to stay the construction of the gate. Thereafter, the 5 th respondent ordered to remove the Bunk as per Ext.P3 and the 7 th respondent issued a stop memo as per Ext.P5 and thus stayed further construction. The pathway is in the puramboke land and it is being used by the petitioner as access to her property as well to the Temple and it is not the Devaswom property. Despite Exts.P3 and P5, the obstruction has not been removed and hence Ext.P6 complaint was filed before the 2 nd respondent, and it was forwarded to the C.I. Of Police, Punalur (3rd respondent) and then to the 4 th respondent (S.H.O Kunnikode Police Station) to give protection to remove the obstruction. But there was no positive action from the side of the police. Hence this petition for police protection.

(2.) The Travancore Devaswom Board and the Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board are impleaded as additional respondent Nos. 13 and 14 as per order dated 16.11.2017 in I.A. No. 6239/2017.

(3.) The President of the Temple Advisory Committee, (11 th Respondent) filed counter affidavit contending that an extent of 5 Ares and 67 sq.metres of property comprised in Survey No. 704/8 of Pidavur Village was purchased by the Kumkum Cherry Desiya Paura Samithy by virtue of sale deed No.227/1977 dated 22.1.1977 of Pathanapuram SRO. Since then, the said property is being used by the Kumkum Cherry Thiruvilangonappan Temple and the eastern portion of the said property is used as the way for procession from the said temple to Bhoothathan Nada. As the property was not having a proper gate on its western and southern sides, a decision was taken in the General Body meeting of the devotees and believers of the Temple for construction of gates. When the construction of the gate on the southern side was commenced, the petitioner and her husband obstructed it. Even then it was complected on 21.3.2017, but apprehending that they will demolish the gate, a suit was filed as O.S.No. 139/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur for injunction restraining the petitioner and her husband from demolishing the gate constructed and for such other reliefs and obtained an order of temporary injunction on 4.4.2017. The order was communicated to the petitioner, but instead of approaching the Civil Court, she rushed to this Court with this petition. In fact, the property of the Temple was not measured by the re-survey authorities. The averment in the petition that the pathway on the western side of her property is a public pathway and her father had surrendered a portion of his property for public way is false. So also, the allegation that, the Temple authorities shifted a bunk to the shop building of the petitioner obstructing access to the public way and shop building, is also false. The construction of the gate was completed much before the issuance of Ext.P5 Stop Memo. The way is the part and parcel of the temple property. The petitioner has no right or enjoyment over the same. The allegation that they have threatened the petitioner is also false.