RAVEENDRAN V P Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The allegation of the petitioner in this writ petition, who claims to be the 'Upadesaka Samithi of Erinjil Bhagavathi Temple", Thrissur is that respondents 5 to 10 have encroached into the property belonging to the temple. The petitioner prays that the respondents 1 to 4 be directed "to get back" the property encroached upon by the respondents and that the "temple pond be brought to its original shale" (sic).

(2.) When we go through the pleadings and materials on record, it becomes evident that the petitioner's claim is that certain extent of land has already been encroached by respondents 5 to 10 and that due to such alleged encroachment, the temple pond has been virtually levelled of.

(3.) However, the question as to whether the property belongs to temple or otherwise are issues which will have to be dealt in the realm of facts, and, therefore, when this Courts acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are proscribed from looking into those issues being essentially disputations of facts between the parties. A survey of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act [TCHRI Act in short] would reveal that the competent Authority to look into these issues, in fact, is the Special Tahasildar, Cochin Devaswom Board.