The petitioner is the NS.S. Karayogam who is entrusted with the possession and management of Thunchan Gurumadam at Chittur Taluk in Palakkad District, which was originally established by Thunchath Ezhuthassan wherein idols have been installed by him, which idols are worshiped by a large number of devotees. The Gurumadam is located on the banks of the river Sokanasini. The belief is that those who worship in the Gurumadam will be emancipated from all their sorrows. Every year hundreds of children are being initiated into the world of letters of the Malayalam alphabet in the Gurumadam. The petitioners are now aggrieved by the apprehended action of the Government in the matter of divesting the petitioner from the control and management of the Gurumadam, after declaring the same as a protected monument. On 9.12.2011, I passed the following order:
"The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 communication from W.P.(C)No.5934 of 2006 -2- the District Collector, Palakkad to Tahsildar, Chittur wherein it is stated that a gazette notification declaring 20 cents of property comprised of the Thunchan Madam in Chittur Taluk has been declared as a protected monument, is forwarded for further action. I am of opinion that this writ petition cannot be further proceeded with without the said gazette notification. The counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such gazette notification. But when the District Collector says in Ext.P9 that the gazette notification has been forwarded to the Tahsildar, I am unable to take the word of the petitioner for the same. In fact the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent also proceeds on the basis that such a government order has been published.
The Government Pleader shall produce the said Government order referred to in Ext.P9.
Post on 19.12.2011 in the weekly list."
2. Pursuant to the same, the Government Pleader has now produced along with a memo dated 3.01.2012, a Government notification dated 22.8.1998. On a perusal of the same, I find that the said document has already been produced by the petitioner as Ext.P6. That document does not actually declare the Gurumadam as an ancient monument under the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968. Under Section 4 (1) of the said Act, if the Government is of opinion that any ancient monument or archaeological sites and remains should be declared to be a protected monument or a W.P.(C)No.5934 of 2006 -3- protected area, the Government has to issue a notification of their intention to declare the monument or area as an ancient monument or archaeological site and after considering any objections that may be received under Section 4 (2), the Government has to declare by notification the monument or area as an ancient monument or archaeological site. What has been produced is only a notification under Section 4 (1). The procedure would be completed only when a further notification is issued under Section 4 (3).
But I need not delve further into this question since in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the Government has no intention to take over the Gurumadam as such. But their intention is only to declare it as a protected monument. It is stated that the petitioner will not be divested of the Gurumadam and they can continue to run the Gurumadam. The petitioner would be satisfied with such a declaration. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: W.P.(C)No.5934 of 2006 -4- It would be open to the Government to issue a notification under Section 4 (3) declaring the Gurumadam as an ancient monument. But the petitioner shall be allowed to continue to run the Gurumadam as before and they shall not be divested of the possession and management of the Gurumadam. Consequently, Ext.P9 would stand quashed. But it would be open to the respondents to mention in the revenue records that the Gurumadam has been declared as an ancient monument, after issuing a final notification under Section 4 (3).
Sd/-
S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/