THE PAYAPPAR SREE DHARMA SASTHA ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HARIPRASAD Vs. A.K.JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri.S.Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board and Sri.Tekchand, the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The third respondent/the Payappar Sree Dharma Sastha Advisory Committee is the appellant before us, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.2.2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5555 of 2019. The Writ Petition was preferred by Sri.A.K.Joseph, the first respondent herein, for a direction to compel the Tahasildar, Meenachil Taluk, to measure and demarcate the property belonging to him and having an extent of 17.16 Ares in Re.Sy.No.383/5 of Lalam Village, in pursuance of Ext.P1 judgment rendered by this Court in A.S.No.298 of 2002. In his writ petition, he claimed that he was the owner of 17 Ares 16 sq.m. of land, along with other property, in Re.Sy.No.383/5 of Lalam Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District and that the appellant herein, which is a temple owned and administered by the Travancore Devaswom Board, owned an extent of 1.18.60 hectares of land in ReSy.No.383/3, Block No.21 in Lalam Village. A suit came to be filed by the Devaswom Board as O.S.No.37 of 1998 before the Munsiff Court, Pala, for recovery of land in Re.Sy.No.383/3, alleging that there had been trespass into the property. It was also contended that the Writ Petitioner was in possession and occupation of 17 Ares 16 sq.m. of temple property. Although the suit was dismissed and confirmed in appeal, the judgment was set aside by the Apex Court and remanded back to this court for fresh adjudication. In Ext.P1 judgment dated 13.6.2018 in A.S.No.298 of 2002, that was passed after the remand from the Supreme Court, this court found that the Writ Petitioner had admitted that he did not have any claim or right over any property in Re.Sy.No.383/3 and that this claim was only in respect of property in Re.Sy.No.383/5 of Lalam Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. It was ,therefore, that the First Appeal was allowed by this court through Ext.P1 judgment and a decree granted in favour of the Devaswom.

(3.) It would appear that the Writ Petitioner (4 th respondent in the A.S.298 of 2002), who admittedly was not in ownership or possession of any land in Re.Sy.No.383/3 which was the subject matter of dispute in the A.S.298 of 2002, found himself in a position where he could not seek an execution of the decree that was passed in favour of the Devaswom Board so as to get a measurement and demarcation of boundaries of his property in Re.Sy. No.383/5. Under the said circumstances, he preferred a request before the fourth respondent Tahasildar for measurement and demarcation of the boundaries of the properties belonging to him in Re.Sy.No.383/5 of Lalam Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District. When no action was taken on the said application by the Tahasildar, the Writ Petitioner approached this court through the aforementioned Writ Petition.