“We bought the land in 1969, registered it, and possess a title deed. We don’t understand the basis of this case when we have documents,” Thomas Parackal told TNM. Parackal is the president of the St Philomena Sadhu Jana Sangam, a previously church-affiliated charitable charitable trust based in Koonammavu near north Paravoor in Kerala’s Kochi district. He is referring to a petition filed in the Kerala High Court accusing the Sangam of encroaching upon around 10 acres of land owned by the Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy temple.
The petition, seemingly encouraged by the Ayodhya case, is one of 100 by a group of lawyers under the banner ‘Save Deities’, targeting individuals, trusts, and organisations – predominantly belonging to minority religions – alleging that they have encroached upon Hindu temple lands. The group is led by Advocate E Krishna Raj, known for his contentious Hindutva views, and his team which includes Pratheesh Viswanath, another staunch Hindu right-wing activist and lawyer.
When TNM visited Krishna Raj in his office in Ernakulam’s Kaloor, he said, “I am not associated with any Sangh Parivar group. For legal affairs, I assist them in some cases. But I am a proud Hindu, not an apologetic Hindu. My aim is to reclaim the lost properties of Bhagawan (god). I am leading this movement alone.”
In the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, 14 suits were filed by various parties. Among these, the fifth suit, filed in 1989 on behalf of ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’, contended that the deity, being a perpetual minor, required representation through human agency. In the eyes of the law, deities are treated as perpetual minors and suits filed on their behalf cannot be dismissed as time-barred.
The legal foundation of the petitions on transfer of ownership of temple properties filed by Krishna Raj and associates also rests on the argument that the deity they represent is a minor and that a property once entrusted to a devaswom, an entity in charge of temple administration, perpetually remains so. According to Krishna Raj, “The deity being a perpetual minor, the property once entrusted to the deity cannot be taken back by executing any documents as they do not have legal validity and will not bind the deity.”
Krishna Raj has filed around 100 writ petitions in the Kerala High Court on behalf of local people who call themselves “proud Hindus”. While the case filed in Koonammavu near north Paravoor in Kochi alleges that a cooperative charitable trust previously affiliated with a church has encroached on temple land, another claims that a Muslim religious organisation in Malappuram is building a mosque on temple land. Yet another case deals with 50 acres of the Vennoor Alathoor Devaswom in Thrissur being encroached upon by several persons. There is also one against a local body, the Payyavoor grama panchayat in Kannur, which has been accused of illegally possessing the property of the Payyavoor Siva temple.
The surge in such litigations, inspired by the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and the ‘resurgence of Hindu pride’, has led to a tangle of ownership disputes that has created tension between religious communities and flummoxed land owners.
On February 10, Krishna Raj was attending an online hearing at his office, where a division bench of the Kerala High Court addressed the case of Sajayan NK vs State of Kerala. Krishna Raj, representing the petitioner Sajayan, argued that 2.15 acres of land in Marancherry village near Ponnani in Malappuram district, belonging to the Thali temple under Guruvayur Devaswom, has been encroached upon, with a ‘mosque’ being constructed there. The ‘mosque’ is being constructed by Maunathul Islam Sabha, the seventh respondent in the case.
The petition claims that prior to 1996, a Thali Siva temple stood on the property, and the land belonged to the Guruvayur Devaswom, and has been recorded so in all revenue records and settlement registers as ‘Thali Ambalaparambu’ (temple ground). Sajayan serves as the president of Thali Maha Siva Kshetra Action Council, formed to address the alleged land encroachment. The petition alleges that in 1996, despite local protests, the Maunathul Islam Sabha constructed a compound wall.
Similar to the other petitions, this one also blames the government for allowing the construction of the mosque and accuses the devaswom of not doing anything to reclaim the land.
The bench questioned Krishna Raj regarding the claim that the temple was demolished and about the presence of the Sivalinga deity on the property. Krishna Raj stated that he possessed a Google Earth photo dated November 20, 2023 as evidence, but hadn’t included it with the petition due to its lack of clarity and promised to produce it soon.
The petition contends that the property belongs to the minor deity of Thali Siva temple, asserting the devotees’ authority to protect the deity’s rights.
Authorities from Maunathul Islam Sabha told TNM that they are unaware of the case and cannot comment until details emerge. One official stated, “We have a property in the said place; we are constructing an Arabic college there.”
Despite local media reports suggesting that the district administration had halted construction temporarily, Malappuram District Collector VR Vinod informed TNM that no such order has been issued from his office thus far.
Kerala Devaswom Minister K Radhakrishnan told TNM that he had been apprised of the Thali Siva temple case and has sought details from the Guruvayur Devaswom. “The Devaswom lacks supporting documents for the encroachment claim. During election periods, such allegations often surface from Sangh Parivar groups,” he said.
After the online hearing, Krishna Raj was busy at his office as usual. Clients, including individuals associated with temples and Sangh Parivar groups, were waiting for him since morning.
With suspicion, he remarked on TNM’s inability to support his movement. “I consider TNM to be a Left organisation. You led a campaign for Siddique Kappan. But whatever you report, it will ultimately benefit us. People like you are the reason for communalising Hindus and some sections of Christians here. I am happy about that,” he said.
The lawyer highlighted how the issue of ‘reclaiming’ temple lands had become a recent topic of discussion, reignited after the Ayodhya Ram temple inauguration when one of his Facebook posts from 2020 went viral. In the post, he mentioned that Our Lady of Dolours Basilica, also known as Puthenpally, a Roman Catholic church in Thrissur, stands on the land of Vadakkunnathan (Vadakkumnathan temple) and will surely be reclaimed. The debate intensified further after RV Babu, leader of Hindu Aikya Vedi, stated in a TV discussion in late January that the St Thomas Syro-Malabar Church in Palayur also stands on temple land.
Speaking about the Palayur church, Krishna Raj claimed, “There are revenue records to prove the claim. We haven’t moved against the church legally yet, but a suit will be filed soon.”
Krishna Raj and his team are currently managing several ‘temple property encroachment’ cases, including seven ongoing cases in Ernakulam, two in Alappuzha, and eight in Thrissur district. “There are individuals and institutions from all religions involved in these cases,” he claimed.
Referring to the case in Koonammavu, Krishna Raj alleged, “A church has encroached upon temple property there.”
The case against the St Philomena Sadhu Jana Sangam involves four petitioners, all from Koonammavu near north Paravoor. According to the petition, around 10 acres of land owned by Konnamkulangara Bhagavathy temple in Kottuvally village have been encroached upon. It also addresses the “recovery of property of minor deities from encroachments.”
TNM visited the disputed property in Kottuvally, where the Sangam has placed a board stating, ‘This land belongs to Koonammavu St Philomena Sadhu Jana Sangam. Grazing not allowed’. Established in 1946 by Fr Sebastian, the vicar of a local church, as a cooperative society to aid community members, the Sangam later became an independent institution with no affiliation to the church.
Parackal informed TNM that their land spans only around 3 acres, not 10 acres as mentioned in the petition. According to him, the issue began a few years ago when Rajendran KB, the first petitioner in the case, started grazing his cows on the land. “Initially, we ignored it. Later, we planted some coconut saplings on the land, and one day we found that they were all destroyed by the cows. Despite our requests, he did not agree to stop grazing his cows there, so we filed a complaint in the court. The Additional District and Sessions Court in north Paravur restricted him from entering the land in favour of our petition,” he explained.
According to the Sangam’s secretary, Voyanas Chandanaparambil, it was after the lower court’s order that Rajendran mobilised some locals and filed a police complaint, supported by the signatures of 82 others, claiming that the land was temple property that had been encroached upon by the Sangam. The police complaint was filed in January 2023, followed by the petition submitted to the High Court in February 2023.
Rajendran told TNM, “The land belongs to the Peruvaram Devaswom. They constructed the compound wall illegally and placed that board. They constructed the wall to block the yearly temple practice of Bhagavathy Ethirelpu.”
Parackal revealed that only recently they discovered that this case was part of a larger picture. “We did not know that Adv Krishna Raj was associated with this case and that he was on a mission with many similar cases. This is scary and threatening,” he expressed.
Krishna Raj founded Save Deities in 2018 with the agenda to litigate cases involving alleged temple lands. Seven High Court lawyers are part of the group. They have a website savedeities.org which has details of court cases being fought by them and seeks donations for the cause. Their motto, as per the website, is ‘Deva Santhu Havirbhuja’, which means whatever the deity has all that is for the deity only.
Though Krishna Raj denies any affiliation with particular organisations, his teammate Pratheesh Viswanath founded Hindu Seva Kendra. Pratheesh is a former Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) member, accused of making hate speeches on social media and orchestrating the 2015 police raid on Kerala House in New Delhi alleging that they served beef.
The 43-year-old was also the all-India joint coordinator of a VHP helpline that caters to ‘victims of love jihad’. State leaders of the VHP had stated that he was ousted from the organisation.
“Ours is a mission to reclaim lost temple properties with the help of law. We are not engaging in any illegal activity; we are simply seeking assistance from the courts,” Krishna Raj emphasised.
The lawyer said his ‘mission’ is not against any religion but aims solely at reclaiming properties of Hindu deities. “People from all religions have encroached upon temple properties,” he said mentioning the Kandampariyaram Siva temple case in Palakkad district’s Mundur village where a writ petition has been filed against five brothers of the Kunnamkode family: Radhakrishnan, Sivanandan, Jayakrishnan, Ananthakrishnan, and Krishnadas. According to the petition, the temple originally had 47.22 acres of land, but due to encroachment by the Kunnamkode family, it now possesses only 33 cents.
A petition concerning the Kakkadath Siva temple in Kozhikode alleges that 125 acres have been encroached upon by Nizar Ahammed, a resident of Mukkam who runs a quarry.
In all the cases that TNM came across, the petitioners are local residents. In the grounds to prove their eligibility in the petitions, it is mentioned, “The petitioner is a devotee and Swabhiman Hindu. The petitioner is a proud Hindu practising Hindu religious rights…” This assertion provides them every right to question the ‘encroachment’, they say.
In 2014, former Devaswom Minister VS Sivakumar had said that nearly 1,000 hectares of Malabar Devaswom land were encroached upon. The Malabar Devaswom manages temples in Kozhikode, Kannur, Kasaragod, and Wayanad. This minister’s disclosure has further fuelled the team, with Krishna Raj emphasising their adherence to legal frameworks in reclaiming what he refers to as the “property of Bhagawan”. He said that only Malabar Devaswom has revealed the encroachment data, adding that if other devaswoms also disclose their data, the numbers could be huge.
The concept of ‘Jenmam’ or inherent rights is crucial to understanding the history of land ownership in Kerala and the legal wrangles associated with temple lands. ‘Jenmam’ is associated with the myth of Parasurama having reclaimed land from the sea by throwing an axe and bestowing the lands on Brahmins. During the mediaeval period (AD 500 to AD 1500), most land was owned by jenmies or landlords. The rest of the people cultivated the land under jenmies. The pattern of land ownership began to change by the mid 18th century.
When the jenmies endowed certain temples with land, these lands became known as devaswom. Hereditary lands owned by Brahmin families who had temples of their own were referred to as Brahmaswom. In 1729, Marthanda Varma, the ruler of erstwhile Travancore, felt threatened by the excessive wealth of the devaswoms and tried to curb it by making land assets the property of the state treasury or Bhandaram (Pandaram).
In 1811, when Col John Munro was the Resident Diwan of Travancore, the state control over temple properties was formalised. In 1865, a royal proclamation converted Pandaram vaka (treasury) lease lands into full proprietary lands. A similar proclamation was made in the erstwhile state of Cochin in 1905. The devaswom boards were constituted after the passing of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu religious institutions ordinance in 1949, which made them custodians of temple lands. In the 1960s, Kerala legislated several land reforms, which put an end to the feudal system. By 1970, tenants had rights on lands they tilled. The devaswom boards too were not exempt from it, leading to legal battles.
In many places, individuals have filed complaints before devaswom boards stating that their land has been alienated. The devaswom boards too do not have clear titles for the land they hold because ownership status in revenue records is not clear. When they receive a complaint, devaswom boards issue notices to individuals, asking them to produce valid documents of land ownership, such as title deeds or land purchase certificates. Tenants are provided with certificates of purchase under a provision of the Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 by land tribunals if they can prove they are tillers. There are people who approach land tribunals for such certificates even now.
An official with the Cochin Devaswom Board said that in Kodungalloor and Chottanikkara, they have issued hundreds of notices to individuals based on such complaints. “This is a complicated issue and has the potential to cause social unrest,” the official added.
Prominent High Court lawyer Harish Vasudevan emphasised the pivotal role of judicial interpretation in determining verdicts on contentious cases. “Precedents and legal provisions can undergo shifts; ultimately, it’s the judge’s perspective that shapes the outcome,” he told TNM. Explaining the intricacies, he said, “Whether the transfer of property belonging to a ‘perpetual minor’ occurred against existing laws or regardless of the duration of ownership or the purchase transactions, such transfers will not be sanctioned.”
Expressing concern about the societal repercussions of the Save Deities litigations, Harish said, “It’s unfair to entertain these disputes after so many years.” He acknowledged the presence of precedents to navigate such legal quagmires but underscored the significance of judicial discretion in resolving them.
Reflecting on recent judicial trends, Harish pointed out instances where courts seemed to prioritise legal technicalities over constitutional principles, citing the recent verdict on reserving the Sabarimala chief priest position for the Malayala Brahmin community. “Given this context, if we consider the possibility of illegal transfers reverting to deities, legally it’s a plausible outcome,” he added.
In 2023, the Kerala High Court, while hearing petitions on alienation of temple lands, said it can go into the truth of such complaints. “The Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board, which are entrusted with the duty of managing the properties of Devaswoms under its management, are duty bound to protect those properties of the deity, who is a perpetual minor, from any wrongful claims, theft or misappropriation. The position of the Travancore Devaswom Board and that of the Cochin Devaswom Board in this regard is analogous to that of trustees. Any such wrongful claim, theft or misappropriation with the passive or active collusion of the authorities concerned, which are acts of ‘fence eating the crop’ should be dealt with sternly. Since deity being a perpetual minor, this Court is having inherent jurisdiction to protect and safeguard the interest and properties of the deity and the doctrine of parens patriae will also apply to the exercise of such jurisdiction,” a division bench of the court held.
Minister Radhakrishnan voiced concerns about the Sangh Parivar’s motives, alleging that their intent was to foment societal unrest. “There are arguments over ancient Buddhist viharas beneath many temples. One is demolished and another constructed over centuries. But when these all are raised, one should think about societal implications,” he cautioned. “Their agenda appears geared toward sowing discord,” he said.
A BJP leader seeking anonymity told TNM, “We are not supporting this officially, but we do support unofficially. It is a fact that hectares of temple lands are encroached by people of other communities, political outfits, etc. The complainants in many of the cases are either BJP sympathisers or members.”