Judgment :- Ramachandran, J. A religious institution of Gowda Saraswatha Brahmin Community has filed this writ petition pointing out the difficulties that are faced by them in the matter of receiving the statutory annuity payable by the Government. Mr. Prabhu appearing for the petitioner submits that in spite of the recognized legal rights, it has become necessary that the writ petitions are required to be filed every year for opening the eyes of the respondent and this Court should particularly take note of the said predicament. 2. The Government had by Ext.P1 letter, as early as on 21.3.1998, informed the Devaswom that it was not necessary on the part of the petitioner-Devaswom to make applications to the Government every year, but would be possible for them to draw the amount from the treasury every year, without procedural formalities and had thus recognised the entitlement and responsibility. Mr. Prabhu submits that in spite of the above, there was non-co-operation from the Department. On the other hand, there were instructions to the petitioner to produce certificates recognizing them as a religious institution. This, according to the counsel, was harassment as their basic rights already stood recognized. It is a temple of status and standing and kanam properties were lost to them by the impact of the Land Reforms Act. The payment of annuity was a statutory duty of the Government to be made in perpetuity. When rights for receiving annuity had been so recognised, such payments are to be made regularly and it would be infra dig to suggest that the Devaswom authorities are to plead every year for such payment with begging bowl, for the lords to condescend. 3. The Land Reforms Act was a successor to the Kerala Agrarian relations Act, 1960, which had been introduced duly taking notice of the omissions the said statute suffered. The Government had felt that a mere amending legislation would not be sufficient an that it would be more appropriate to enact a fresh legislation, replacing the existing Act. Government had given a more equitable and fairer consideration to the cause of the landlords and intermediaries, who ultimately were to be dispossessed by the holdings. 4. The Government had felt that a mere amending legislation would not be sufficient an that it would be more appropriate to enact a fresh legislation, replacing the existing Act. Government had given a more equitable and fairer consideration to the cause of the landlords and intermediaries, who ultimately were to be dispossessed by the holdings. 4. The statement of objections and reasons also provided that “….The land owner or the intermediary who is a public, religious, charitable or educational institution is entitled to choose whether its rights, title and interests may be permitted to be purchased by the cultivating tenant or whether they should be vested in the Government in consideration of the payment of an annuity by the Government. If the institution chooses the second alternative, the rights will be vested in the Government and will be assigned to the cultivating tenant on his application. For the purchase or assignment of the rights of the landowner and intermediaries, the cultivating tenant has to pay a purchase price equal to 16 times the fair rent, in addition to value of structures, well and embankments of a permanent nature belonging to the landowner and the intermediaries. This right is of course the same as is given to other tenants. The entire purchase price so collected is payable as compensation to the landowner and intermediaries subject to a deduction of 2½ percent thereof towards collection charges.� 5. Thus the Government has obligation created under the Act, and this cannot be shaken away as is inconvenient. It is to be assumed that within the time stipulated under Section 72 of the Act, the petitioner had opted for receiving annuity as prescribed by Section 65 of the Act. Being a Devaswom, unlike charitable organization or educational institutions, its character always remains unaltered. There was no dispute about its status or eligibility, as could be gatherable from the conduct of the Government in paying the annuity determined, for the past years, and a process of determination under Section 66 had preceded. 6. A finality could be presumed as attached to such a decision taken by the Board, after the Gazette notification. Section 67 casts a duty on the Government thereafter to pay annuity to the institution, in perpetuity. In this view, we find that the petitioner is dragged on to this Court without justification. 7. 6. A finality could be presumed as attached to such a decision taken by the Board, after the Gazette notification. Section 67 casts a duty on the Government thereafter to pay annuity to the institution, in perpetuity. In this view, we find that the petitioner is dragged on to this Court without justification. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the grievance will be examined. We direct that since the eligibility of the petitioner cannot be disputed, every year, annuity amount is to be paid by the Treasury Officer concerned, especially if a formal application is made. For the years 2004-05 and 2005-06, we direct that the compensation amount is to be paid within one month from today. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.