JUDGMENT : K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J. 1. These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . 2. The grievance highlighted in all these Writ Petitions, in brief, is that the immovable properties of various temples were encroached by the party respondents. The official respondents are the revenue officials and the District Judges having jurisdiction. 3. The issues of fact and law involved in all these Writ Petitions are common and therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. W.P.(C) No. 25175 of 2020 is taken as the lead case. The parties and exhibits are hereinafter referred to as in that Writ Petition, unless otherwise specified. 4. Sri. Krishnaraj, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioners, submitted that the revenue records, like settlement registers as well as the BTRs, would clearly indicate that the properties belong to the temples, but the revenue officials, the District Collector and his subordinates, are not taking any steps to remove the party respondents who have encroached into the temple land. 5. Smt. Resmi A., the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) Nos. 42061/2022, 4568/2023, 12581/2023, 16048/2023 and 29530/2023, advanced contentions similar to those advanced in the connected cases. 6. The learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in A.A Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others , 2007 (4) KLT 965 and submitted that the properties of the deities are to be protected and safeguarded by their trustees/archakas/shebaits/employees. The learned counsel submitted that once there is an entrustment of property as Devaswom property, it would always remain as Devaswom property. Further, it is submitted that ‘Devaswom’ means the property of the deity. 7. The learned counsel would further argue that the deity being a perpetual minor, the property once entrusted to the deity cannot be taken back by executing any documents. The learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment in Nandakumar v. District Collector , 2018 (1) KLT 1019 in support of their argument. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the Government as well as the courts are legally bound to protect the interests of the deity who is a perpetual minor. According to the learned counsels, this Court has got ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interest of the deity. 8. According to the learned counsels, this Court has got ample powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also under the parens patriae jurisdiction to safeguard the interest of the deity. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Apex Court dated 05/07/2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018, Mrinalini Padhy v. Union of India , 2018 SCC OnLine SC 667 , wherein the Apex Court held that the protection of assets of the shrines, irrespective of the religion, is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for the Courts. 9. The learned counsel has pointed out that the revenue officials are not taking any steps to recover the properties of the Devaswom which were encroached by the party respondents invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 . 10. It is with these assertions, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 25175 of 2020 approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: a. “quash Exhibits.P-2 to P-38 pattayams issued to respondents by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction. b. direct respondents 1 to 4 to remove all the encroachment in the property having an extent of 5.20 acres situated in Survey Numbers 489/4 and 490/1 of Puthuppalli Village belongs to deities of Kodumkali, Bhadrakali and Durga of Kalarickal Bhagavathi Temple under the provisions of Land Conservancy Act and protect the assets of the deity as directed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(C).No.649/2018 dated 05.07.2018 by issue of writ of mandamus or such other writ or order or direction. c. direct the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P-40 as directed by the Apex Court in W.P.(c).No.649/2018 dated 05.07.2018 and file a report before this Hon'ble Court by the issue of an appropriate writ or order or direction.” 11. Similar reliefs have been sought in all other Writ Petitions with a view to issue directions to the revenue officials to oust the encroachers/the party respondents from the Devaswom properties. 12. Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have no locus standi to file Writ Petitions of this nature. In the Writ Petitions, it is not stated in which capacity they have filed the Writ Petitions. 12. Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have no locus standi to file Writ Petitions of this nature. In the Writ Petitions, it is not stated in which capacity they have filed the Writ Petitions. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, cannot be invoked for evicting the encroachments of the properties of the private temples. The temples covered in all these Writ Petitions are private temples. 13. The learned Government Pleader would further point out that the Ooralans/ trustees of the temples were not arrayed as parties to the Writ Petitions. Therefore, the Writ Petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that the judgment in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) is not applicable to private temples. The learned counsel has pointed out that the general guidelines issued by the Apex Court were made in a different context. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents would submit that they have been in possession of the properties for the past several decades and they have title deeds, purchase certificates and other documents in their possession to prove their title. They have not encroached into the property of the temples. The learned counsel would also submit that the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, cannot be invoked to evict them. The guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 15. From among the rival submissions, the following issues arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the Writ Petitions are maintainable? (ii) Whether the Writ Petitions are bad for non-joinder of necessary Parties? (iii) Whether the directives issued in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) are applicable to private temples which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Boards? (iv) Whether the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act could be invoked to evict an occupant of a property belong to a private temple ? Judicial Evaluation 16. The learned counsel for the official respondents as well as the party respondents have raised certain preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions. The first objection is that the Writ Petitions are filed without impleading the necessary and proper parties. Judicial Evaluation 16. The learned counsel for the official respondents as well as the party respondents have raised certain preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions. The first objection is that the Writ Petitions are filed without impleading the necessary and proper parties. All these temples whose properties were allegedly encroached by the party respondent are private temples. The Government or the Devaswom Boards have no control over the affairs of those temples. According to the learned counsel for respondents, the Writ Petitions have to be dismissed on the sole ground. 17. In most of the Writ Petitions, the party respondents have raised this preliminary objection as to the non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. No steps were taken by the Writ Petitioners to implead the Ooralans or Trustees of the temples in the party array. 18. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another , AIR 1963 SC 786 , the Apex Court categorised a necessary party and proper party as follows: “7……………..A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively; a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceeding.” 19. In Poonam v. State of U. P. and Others , 2016 (2) SCC 779 , the Apex Court observed that the basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice, that no order should be passed behind the back of a person who is to be adversely affected by the order. The principle behind proviso to Order I R.9 that the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. 20. The Apex Court in Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh , 2025 KHC 6630 , observed that insofar as writ proceedings are concerned, it is no longer res integra that any order made on a writ petition affecting the interest of a party who has not been arrayed as a respondent could be invalidated on the ground of breach of natural justice. The principle behind the proviso to O.1 R.9 that the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. 21. The principle behind the proviso to O.1 R.9 that the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins it and the said principle is also applicable to the writs. 21. The Apex Court in the above judgments has made it clear that a suit or proceedings must fail for want of necessary parties. In the instant case, the Ooralans/the persons in charge of the affairs of the temple are necessary parties to the Writ Petitions. In their absence, an effective adjudication of the lis may not be possible. 22. The second submission by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mrinalini Padhi (supra), are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant cases. The relevant paragraphs of Mrinalini Padhi (supra) are extracted hereunder for easy reference: “10. Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits a Court also to issue direction for making a scheme or making an arrangement for any charitable or religious institution. Accordingly, we direct that if any devotee moves the jurisdictional District Judge throughout the India with any grievance on the above aspect, the District Judge may either himself/herself or by assigning the issue/matter to any other Court under his/her jurisdiction examine above aspects and if necessary send a report to the High Court. We have no doubt that the High Court will consider these aspects in public interest in accordance with law and issue such judicial directions as becomes necessary having regard to individual fact situation.” **************** “19. We may sum-up our directions in today's orders, in addition to the orders dated 8.6.2018, as follows: i) Report of the District Judge dated 26.6.2018 is accepted in principle and action to be taken by the temple administration. ii) District Judge, Puri may send further report, if any by 31.8.2018, preferably by e-mail. iii) The State Government may submit report of the Committee constituted by it on or before 31.8.2018. iv) The Central Government may constitute its Committee, as already directed, within two weeks from today and place its interim report on record of this Court on or before 31.8.2018. v) Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be placed on the websites of the temple management, Ministry of Culture and website of the Supreme Court for two weeks. v) Copy of the Report of the District Judge may be placed on the websites of the temple management, Ministry of Culture and website of the Supreme Court for two weeks. vi) The directions in the order dated 8.6.2018 may be complied with by all concerned and non-compliance thereof may be reported to this Court for appropriate action if necessary. vii) The temple management may consider, subject to regulatory measures, with regard to dress code, giving of an appropriate declaration or compliance with other directions, permitting every visitor irrespective of his faith, to offer respects and to make offerings to the deity. viii) We have noted that Hinduism does not eliminate any other belief and is eternal faith and wisdom and inspiration of centuries, as noted in earlier judgments of this Court. ix) Difficulties faced by the visitors, deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene, appropriate utilization of offerings and protections of assets with regard to shrines, irrespective of religion is a matter for consideration not only for the State Government, Central Government but also for Courts. Every District Judge throughout India may examine such matters himself or through any court under his jurisdiction and send a report to the concerned High Court so that such report can be treated as PIL on the judicial side and such direction may be issued as may be considered necessary having regard to individual fact situation. x) Learned amicus is at liberty to engage with all stakeholders and to give suggestions for bringing about improvements and also to give a report to this Court. However, this will not stand in the way of the Committee of the State Government, Committee of the Central Government or any District Judge considering matters in terms of above directions.” 23. In Mrinalini Padhi (supra), the Apex Court has considered the issues of the visitors and the devotees with regard to the exploitative practices which were followed in Puri Shri Jangannath Temple, lack of hygiene in the said temple, etc. 24. In Akshay Krishnan v. State of Kerala , 2025 (3) KHC 326 , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had occasion to consider the scope, ambit and the applicability of Mrinalini Padhi (supra). 25. In Akshay Krishnan (supra), the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition alleging mismanagement by the Temple Committee of Parappool Bhagavathy Temple, including failure to maintain the temple and its properties. 25. In Akshay Krishnan (supra), the petitioner approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition alleging mismanagement by the Temple Committee of Parappool Bhagavathy Temple, including failure to maintain the temple and its properties. The petitioner therein sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the District Judge, Thalassery to submit a report and to direct the Temple Committee to hand over the administration of the Temple to the Ooralans. 26. While dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court observed in paragraphs 27 and 28, which reads thus: “27. Therefore, the issue raised in Ext.P3 representation dated nil made by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, which is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P4 petition dated nil made by one Vivek V. V. before the District Judge, Thalassery relating to the dispute between Parappool Kavu Committee, in which respondents 4 and 5 herein are its Secretary and President, respectively, and the members of the Ooralan families of Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05/07/2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi (2018 SCC OnLine SC 667). 28. The question as to whether Parappool Bhagavathi Temple (Parappool Kavu), Thaliparambu is a 'religious institution', as defined in clause (15) of S.6 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 , has to be decided by invoking the statutory remedy provided under clause (a) of S.57 of the said Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner on the said dispute shall be subject to the right of suit or appeal provided under S.61 and S.62 of the said Act. Similarly, the question as to whether a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of S.6 of the Act has to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, in a proceedings initiated under S.58. Similarly, the question as to whether a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of S.6 of the Act has to be decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, in a proceedings initiated under S.58. The question as to whether a temple is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of S.6 of the said Act or whether a scheme has to be framed for proper administration of a temple, which is a 'religious institution' as defined in clause (15) of S.6, is beyond the scope of the general direction contained in clause (ix) of paragraph 20 of the order of the Apex Court dated 05/07/2018 in W.P.(C)No.649 of 2018 - Mrinalini Padhi (2018 SCC OnLine SC 667). Such reliefs cannot also be sought for in a writ petition filed before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India .” 27. In view of the judgment in Akshay Krishnan (supra), we are of the firm view that the general guideline issued by the Apex court in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) cannot be invoked to evict the occupants who allegedly encroached into the property of some private temples. 28. Last but not the least the question involved in these matters is that whether the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act can be used for evicting the occupants/alleged encroachers from the property? 29. At this juncture, it would be useful to quote the relevant provisions of the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act and Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Provisions of “50. Applicability of Land Conservancy Act to unassigned lands of Devaswoms under the Board.- All unassigned lands belonging to any Devaswom under the sole management of the Board shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Land Conservancy Act of 1091 (IV of 1091) and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands.” Provisions of Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act “94A. Applicability of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Applicability of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. - All lands belonging to the Board and religious institutions shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (8 of 1958) and all the provisions of that Act shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to such lands.” 30. On going through the above referred provisions, it is crystal clear that the lands belonging to the Devaswom Boards alone shall be deemed to be the property of the Government for the purpose of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. 31. In the instant Writ Petitions the petitioners have no case that any of the Temples would come within the control of the Devaswom Board. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act could not be invoked to evict the occupants or the alleged encroachers of private temples. 32. Moreover, on going through the pleadings of the party respondents and from the submissions of the counsels, it could be seen that they are in possession of the properties for more than the past five decades. They have registered title deeds in their names and in most cases the occupants have obtained purchase certificates from the competent authorities. It seems that they are remitting land tax for the past several years. 33. This Court in Sree Kumaramputhoor Bhagavathy Devaswom Kshethra v. Malabar Devaswom Board , 2026 (1) KLT 601 observed that if the occupant is occupying the land for several decades on the strength of title deeds and purchase certificates, the Writ Court should be loath to direct the competent authority under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act to order eviction. 34. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. The reliefs claimed in the Writ Petitions cannot be granted. The petitioners can pursue appropriate reliefs in the competent civil courts having jurisdiction, if so advised. In the result, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.