ST.GEORGE JACOBITE SYRIAN CHURCH v. NONE

ADDL.R8 ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, KADAMATTAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, S/O P.C. GEORGE, AGED 59, POONTHRA, KADAMATTOM P.O, KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 311 ADDL.R9 SRI.JOSEPH T ABRAHAM, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. T. J.ABRAHAM, THANIMOLEL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 311 TRUSTEE, ST.GEORGE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CHURCH, KADAMATTAM [ADDL.R8 AND R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.01.2024 IN I.A-3/2022 IN WP(C) 2371/2015] BY ADVS. SRI.N.K.POULOSEKUTTY P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR OTHER PRESENT: SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2371 OF 2015 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 2371 of 2015 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby command the 2nd respondent to take decision on Exts.P-1 and P-3 representations in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also delete the wrongful entry made in the asset register of the 2nd respondent recently with regard to the private road in the name Kotheri Maly Pallithazham road, owned, possessed and managed by the St. George Jacobite Syrian Church, Kadamattam, starting from National Highway 49 up to Poyedam church. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby direct 2nd respondent panchayath not to take forceful possession of the road owned, possessed and managed by the petitioner church without acquiring the land either by Land Acquisition proceedings or obtaining valid title over the same either by surrender, in compliance with Rule-3 of the Kerala Panchayaths (Acquisition and Transfer of Immoveable Properties) Rules 1963 or by sale deed or gift deed as per the provisions under the Transfer of WP(C) NO. 2371 OF 2015 4 Property Act. iii. Grant such other reliefs, which are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

[SIC]

When this writ petition came up for consideration on

26.03.2015, this Court passed the following order : “The issue is with regard to the road leading from NH 49 to the petitioner's church: Whether it is a private road owned by the petitioner church or a public road vested in the respondent Grama Panchayat in terms of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act?

2. Though Exhibit R4(a) shows that the road is shown as entry 78 in the asset register of the Grama Panchayat, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the last item in the asset register added very recently without any manner of justification. All along the road is said to have belonged to the petitioner church. He has also undertaken that before the issue could be resolved, the petitioner church will maintain the road, so that no inconvenience is caused to the users of the said road.

The learned counsel for additional respondents 3 to 7 has initially submitted that beginning from 1970's, the road has been vested in the respondent Grama Panchayat. In the alternative, he has also submitted that the only concern of additional respondents 3 to 7 is that the road be maintained properly for the benefit of all the users thereby.

The learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat, on instructions, has submitted that the Grama Panchayat intends to improve upon the road. If any judicial WP(C) NO. 2371 OF 2015 5 interdiction in that regard is given, the funds earmarked for that purpose will lapse.

As has been rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, mere inclusion of a property in the asset register will not ipso facto lead to a conclusion that the road belongs to the Grama Panchayat, unless it has got statutory right or title. The very issue of who owns the road or in other words, whether it is a private road or a public one vested in the Grama Panchayat is required to be decided. In the meanwhile, not to cause any inconvenience to the commuters, the church has come forward to spend money for the up keep of the road. The learned counsel, in fact, has submitted that within ten days whatever necessary improvements are to be made on the road would be effected by the church.

In the facts and circumstances, it is made clear that, pending further orders, the petitioner church shall take all essential steps to maintain the road for the convenience of the general public. It is further made clear that maintenance of the road by the petitioner church does not confer any indefeasible right on the petitioner concerning the road, which is to be resolved later. Post the matter after vacation.”