JUDGMENT : P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. 1. This case has a long history and several rounds of litigations have already been pursued before different fora, namely the civil court, this court, as well as the Apex Court in relation to the encroachment over the property belonging to the Devaswom by the persons concerned, who are in the party array as additional respondents 5 onwards. The D.B.P. came to be registered on 15.03.2012, referring to the above facts and figures and the further action to be taken to cause the property belonging to the Devaswom to be recovered by invoking appropriate steps including the Land Conservancy Act and also to protect and preserve the temple compound and the property. 2. Heard Smt. S. Karthika, learned counsel appearing for the complainant who preferred the complaint before the Ombudsman, learned standing counsel for the Devaswom Board and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the additional fourth respondent-the District Collector, who was suo motu impleaded in the party array. 3. The sequence of events reveals that, the Devaswom property came to be encroached by some persons and they attempted to cut and remove the trees standing in the property of the Karikode Sastha and Mahavishnu Temple under Cochin Devaswom Board, when some of the devotees filed CDB No. 3 of 1996 before this court with reference to the objectionable act being pursued in Survey No. 1042/2. After hearing both the sides this Court arrived at a specific finding as to the genuineness of the grievance projected by the party and in turn, directing the respondents concerned to take necessary steps to take back the possession of 21 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1042/2. This was to the chagrin of the occupants (Madhavi Warassiyar and Others), who sought to challenge the same by approaching the Supreme Court. The case filed before the Apex Court came to be dismissed, affirming the verdict passed by this court to take back the possession of the property in Survey No. 1042/2, however, leaving it open to the parties who approached the Supreme Court to move the Civil Court, if at all, they were having any right with regard to the title, ownership and possession over the property in Survey No. 1042/2. Based on the verdict passed by the Supreme Court, the CDB came to be closed as per the orders passed by this court on 9.9.1998. By virtue of the liberty granted by the Apex Court to move the Civil Court, the aforesaid parties approached the Sub Court, Ernakulam by filing O.S. No. 399 of 1998 for declaration of their title over 21 cents of land comprised in Survey No. 1042/2 of Mulanthuruthy Village and for such other reliefs. 4. When the matter was pending consideration, a proposal was moved from the part of the plaintiffs to the effect that, in place of the aforesaid 21 cents of land in Survey No. 1042/2 which was ordered to be taken over, they were ready to surrender an extent of 30 cents in Survey No. 1043, situated nearby, asserting that they are the absolute owners of the said property, having exclusive possession and enjoying the same with clear and marketable title. It was also pointed out that they had already obtained 'purchase certificate' from the competent authority with regard to the said property. Pointing out that the request was pending consideration before the Cochin Devaswom Board and that no decision was taken, they approached this court by filing O.P. No. 20251 of 2000 to cause the said matter to be considered. The above original petition was disposed of by this court on 27.7.2000, directing the Cochin Devaswom Board to consider the proposal. Based on the said direction, the matter was considered by the Cochin Devaswom Board, who passed a resolution on 29.8.2000, accepting the proposal to have the properties exchanged, in turn to have the issue/dispute settled by a compromise. It was accordingly, that a compromise petition was preferred before the Sub Court, Ernakulam in O.S. No. 399 of 1998 and based on the compromise arrived at, the suit was decreed in terms of the compromise. 5. On coming across the turn of events, the complainant approached this court by filing O.P. No. 19728 of 2001, pointing out that the case pursued by the Devaswom Board was a dubious exercise, extending undue favours to the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 399 of 1998, more so, since, the property in Survey No. 1043 was situated immediately in front of the temple and that various structures/sub deities were already there. It was pointed out that, even by the farthest stretch of imagination, the said property was never in possession or cultivated by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 399 of 1998. Unfortunately, the original petition came to be dismissed by this Court, which made the complainant to approach the Apex Court by filing necessary proceedings. After completion of service of notice, the parties were heard in detail and the Apex Court held that, a clear instance of fraud was established in causing the properties to be exchanged. It was also observed that this would not have been possible without the consent and connivance of the persons in the Devaswom Board, more so, when the assignment was caused to be made in favour of one of the employees (Kazhakom) of the Devaswom. The observations as contained in paragraph 7 onwards of the said verdict are very relevant and hence we find it appropriate to have the same extracted herein, which would give more clarity for the course of action to be pursued, based on the observations, declarations and directions given, as given below: “7. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. We find considerable force in the contention of the appellant that the Devaswom Board really got nothing out of the settlement and it gave to respondents 3 to 5 property (Sy. No. 1042/2) which belonged to the Karikkode Temple in regard to which this Court and High Court had specifically directed the Board to take immediate possession. Survey No. 1042/2 adjoins the temple. Survey No. 1043, it is seen, is the land in front of the temple and is a part of the temple where there are three structures housing idols/vigrahas of Upadevadas. The fact that the said Sy. No. 1043 and always been in the possession and enjoyment of the temple, is not in dispute. The fact that Sy. No. 1043 was never under cultivation of respondents 3 tq. 5 at any time, is also not seriously contested. 8. During the hearing the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 made available a copy of an order dated 21.2.1976 passed by the Special Tehsildar, LR No. II, Ernakulam in SMP 3458/75 to establish the alleged title to Sy. No. 1043. After perusing the said order, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the said order did not refer to Sy. No. 1043. No. 1043. After perusing the said order, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the said order did not refer to Sy. No. 1043. He submitted that even if it related to Sy. No. 1043. It was evident that the third respondent, an employee of the Board had apparently in collusion with some revenue officials, got a suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 showing third respondent as a 'cultivating tenant' under Karikkode Devaswom, and secured an ex-parte order dated 21.2.1976, sanctioning the assignment of the land under sub-section (5) of section 72F of the said Act. The learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the very fact that the third respondent, an employee of the temple, has been shown to be the cultivating tenant of the land in front of the temple, containing the structures where Upadevadas are installed, in a suo motu proceedings, clearly demor strated collusion/fraud in securing the order dated 21.2.1976. Be that as it may. 9. What is surprising is that when respondents 3 to 5 claimed ownership of Survey No. 1043, which was the form portion of the temple premises in the possession of the temple (in the proposal for settlement dated 6.7.2000), the Devaswom Board, instead of investigating and verifying as to how they could claim ownership over temple property, strangely agreed for a settlement under which the temple was to get Sy. No. 1043 (which was a temple land already in its possession), in exchange for giving away another temple land (Sy. No. 1042/2) to respondents 3 to 5. It is significant that the Board resolution dated 29.8.2000 agreeing for the settlement proposal clearly records that Sy. No. 1043 is already in the possession of the temple. 10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of fences eating the crops should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. This is possible only with the passive or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of fences eating the crops should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. 11. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the settlement in the suit (OS No. 399/1998) was validly arrived at between them (Plaintiffs) and the Devaswom Board (defendant), that the Devaswom Board had considered the proposal after taking legal advice and had duty passed a resolution to settle the suit. It is further submitted that a decree having been made in terms of the compromise and such decree having attained finality, it cannot be questioned, interfered or set aside at the instance of a third party in a writ proceeding. Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC deals with compromise of suits. Rule 3A provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. We are of the considered view that the bar contained in Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining the validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud/collusion are made against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise. While, it is true that decrees of civil courts which have attained finality should not be interfered lightly, challenge to such compromise decrees by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit cannot be rejected, where fraud/collusion on the part of officers of a statutory board is made out. Further, when the High Court by order dated 9.9.1998 had directed the Board to take possession of Sy. No. 1042/2 immediately from respondents 3 and 4 in CDB No. 3/1996, in a complaint by another devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with respondents. No. 2 and 3 giving up the right, title and interest in Sy. No. 1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. Viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside.” 6. No. 2 and 3 giving up the right, title and interest in Sy. No. 1042/2, without the permission of the court which passed such order. Viewed from any angle, the compromise decree cannot be sustained and is liable to set aside.” 6. Based on the above observations, the Apex Court held that the compromise dated 30.8.2000 and the compromise decree dated 18.9.2000 in O.S. No. 399 of 1998 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam were not liable to be sustained and they were set aside accordingly. The Devaswom Board was directed to take possession of the property in Survey No. 1042/2 as already directed by this court. However, the respondents 3 to 5 in the above proceedings were granted liberty to pursue O.S. No. 399 of 1998, if they so desired, on which event, the Sub Court, Ernakulam was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Apex Court also made it clear that the Devaswom Board was at liberty to take action in accordance with law with regard to the property in Survey No. 1043. The District Collector, Ernakulam was directed to hold an enquiry as to the circumstances in which the order dated 21.2.1976 in SMP No. 3458 of 1975 was passed on the file of the Special Tahsildar LR No. II, Ernakulam and to take consequential remedial action. 7. From the above, it is very much evident that the claim put forth before the Apex Court with reference to the property having an extent of 21 cents in Survey No. 1042/2 was repelled and the verdict passed by this court was affirmed, directing the said property to be taken over immediately. However, granting liberty to the claimants to approach the civil court and pursue further steps with regard to O.S. No. 399 of 1998, if at all they were interested. Obviously, the claim put up in the said civil suit was with reference to the property in Survey No. 1042/2 and never with reference to Survey No. 1043. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that despite the culmination of the proceedings as above before the Apex Court with regard to the course of action to be pursued, no such action was ever taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board or the District Collector. 8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that despite the culmination of the proceedings as above before the Apex Court with regard to the course of action to be pursued, no such action was ever taken by the Travancore Devaswom Board or the District Collector. This made the complainant to file a complaint before the Ombudsman who submitted report No. 47/2012, before this Court, which made this Court to register the present DBP No. 116 of 2012. Taking note of the specific pleadings and proceedings, the District Collector, Ernakulam was suo motu impleaded in the party array as the additional 4th respondent as per order dated 6.6.2012, who has filed an affidavit. On taking note of the contents of the said affidavit, another order was passed on 4.7.2012 directing the respondents concerned, to furnish particulars of the occupants in the property belonging to the Devaswom Board. In compliance of the said order, the particulars of such occupants came to be furnished, to whom notice was issued and service is complete. We find it appropriate to cause their names shown in the cause title as additional respondents 5 onwards to make the proceedings proper and it is ordered accordingly. It is stated that a counter affidavit has been filed by the said respondents, but some defect was noted by the Registry. Though an order was passed on 20.6.2014 that the counter affidavit could be accepted, it however is still to form part of the records. A copy of the said counter affidavit is placed for perusal by the learned counsel for the complainant and we have gone through the same. It is conceded by the additional respondents 5 onwards in paragraph 13 of the said counter affidavit that they have not pursued further steps in relation to O.S. No. 399 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, despite the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in this regard. 9. Since it is conceded that no such proceedings were ever pursued and further since the title was sought to be established with reference to the extent of 21 cents in Sy. No. 1042/2 in Mulanthuruthy Village, the direction given by this Court and as affirmed by the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2007 (4) KLT 965 (SC) has become final and no further claim can be mooted by the additional respondents in this regard. No. 1042/2 in Mulanthuruthy Village, the direction given by this Court and as affirmed by the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2007 (4) KLT 965 (SC) has become final and no further claim can be mooted by the additional respondents in this regard. It is also brought to our notice from paragraph 4 of the statement dated 10.03.2014 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board that the said property of 21 cents in Sy. No. 1042/2 has already been taken possession on 03.11.2007. 10. The remaining question is with regard to the course of action to be pursued in respect of the property of 64 cents of land in Sy. No. 1043 of the very same village. The counter affidavit filed by the additional respondents 5 onwards is virtually a reproduction/ reiteration of their stand already taken up before the Supreme Court to the effect that they had already obtained Patta/Assignment Certificate in respect of the said property from the Land Tribunal and as to the compromise sought to be effected with regard to the issue projected in OS. No. 399/98 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam. They have also produced a copy of the verdict passed by the Apex Court as Annexure R5(h), besides producing copies of the relevant Patta/Assignment Certificates as Annexure R5(d),(e) and (f) respectively. Annexure R5(d) is the certificate bearing No. 587/1976 dated 21.02.1976 in favour of Madhavi Parukutty Warassyar covering an extent of 21 cents out of the total of 64 cents in Sy. No. 1043, while Annexure R5(e) is in respect of 21 cents in favour of Saraswathy Warasyar and Annexure R5(f) is in respect of 22 cents in favour of Ashok Kumar and Anuradha (children of Thankam Warasyar). It is borne out by the records that the above total extent of 64 cents of property in Sy. No. 1043 and segregated as different extents in Ext.R5(d), (e) and (f) have been the subject matter of partition in the family belonging to the party respondents . With regard to the property in Sy. No. 1043, the observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the verdict cited supra, has been extracted by the additional respondents 5 onwards in paragraph 11 of their counter affidavit and stated in the next paragraph that the observation made by the Ombudsman that there cannot be any doubt that Sy. No. 1043, the observation made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the verdict cited supra, has been extracted by the additional respondents 5 onwards in paragraph 11 of their counter affidavit and stated in the next paragraph that the observation made by the Ombudsman that there cannot be any doubt that Sy. No. 1043 is part of temple compound with Upadevathas and that the certificates of purchase were obtained by practising fraud is not correct. We find it difficult to accept the said proposition and we have virtually extracted the entire observation made by the Apex Court from paragraphs 7 to 11, which clearly reveals the nature of fraud played, the factum of substantiating the fraud and the finding rendered by the Apex Court, in turn setting aside the compromise decree passed by the civil court. 11. As mentioned already, the title was claimed with reference to the property in Sy. No. 1042/2, which alone was the subject matter in O.S. No. 399/98. The property in Sy. No. 1043 was stated as owned, possessed and enjoyed by the additional respondents based on the purchase certificates as aforesaid. When the proceedings were pending before the civil court, proposal was mooted by the plaintiffs that they were having valid title in respect of the lands as covered by the purchase certificates and it was accordingly, that exchange of property was sought for between the property in Sy. No. 1042/2 (in respect of which declaration was sought for in O.S. No. 399 of 1998) and the property in Sy. No. 1043. The specific case projected before the Supreme Court by the complainant was that the property in Sy. No. 1043 could never have been validly conveyed to the aforesaid party respondents in so far as the said property was situated just in front of the temple where various structures and sub-deities (Upadevathas) are situated, which hence was never under the possession of the said respondents; much less anything as cultivating tenants. It was only on substantiating the factual position as above, that the Apex Court rendered a declaration that the course of action pursued by causing exchange of the properties concerned was not liable to be sustained. It was only on substantiating the factual position as above, that the Apex Court rendered a declaration that the course of action pursued by causing exchange of the properties concerned was not liable to be sustained. It was accordingly that the compromise dated 30.08.2000 and the compromise decree passed by the civil court were set aside, with liberty to the Devaswom Board to take appropriate action in respect of the property in Sy. No. 1043. With regard to the property in Sy. No. 1042/2, the verdict passed by this Court was affirmed and the said property was directed to be taken possession of immediately, however granting a chance to the party respondents to proceed with O.S. No. 399/98 by establishing their title, if at all they were having any valid claim in respect of the said property. No such right was reserved in respect of the property covered by Sy. No. 1043, more so since the fraud stated as committed was held as established, which was the basis for setting aside the compromise and the compromise decree, offering the property in Sy. No. 1043 in exchange of the property in Sy. No. 1042/2. The said finding of the Supreme Court having become final, we are of the view that no further steps are necessary in respect of the property covered by Sy. No. 1043 and the Patta stated as obtained by the additional respondents are of no consequences. 12. The learned counsel for the complainant brought to our notice that almost a similar circumstance was dealt with by another Division Bench of this Court as per the decision in Travancore Devaswom Board vs. Mohanan Nair, 2013 (3) KLT 132 , whereby the DBP No. 21/2009 was allowed quashing the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in SM.84/77 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal therein. Paragraphs 79 and 80 of the said verdict are relevant and hence they are extracted below: “79. Therefore, we allow D.B.P. No. 21/2009 and quash the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in S.M. No. 84/1977 and the order passed by the Land Tribunal therein, produced as Annexure 3 along with the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent and the purchase certificate which have been marked as Annexure X6 and X7 in the reply affidavit filed by the Board. In the light of the above view we have taken in D.B.P. No. 21/2009, it is unnecessary for us to deal with the matter elaborately in C.R.P. Nos. 256/2011 and 257/2011, as the said view will govern those revision petitions. We set aside the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, which are under challenge in the civil revision petitions and C.R.P. Nos. 256/2011 and 257/2011 are allowed. 80. We declare that the property having an extent of 2.01 acres in old Sy. No. 1507/4 (resurvey No. 53/8) is liable to be restored to Ezhumuttom Sree Dharma Sastha Temple. We direct the fourth respondent and his brother who is impleaded as additional fourth respondent in the civil revision petitions, to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the Board within one month from today. If not, the Special Tahsildar of the Board will initiate proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act to evict them. Appropriate changes will be made in the Revenue records also.” 13. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that, though the matter has become final by virtue of the declaration made by the Supreme Court in relation to the exchange sought to be effected in setting aside the compromise decree in O.S. No. 399/98, it will only be appropriate to hold that the said assignment certificates are of no consequence and to have them set aside accordingly, so that necessary corrections could be effected in the revenue records. We find considerable force in the said submission. 14. It is brought to the notice of this Court that one of the Additional respondents herein by name K.K. Balakrishnan had approached this Court by filing two writ petitions such as W.P. (C) No. 21627/2013 and 23778 of 2014. The claim was with regard to the rights over the property in question. In W.P (C) No. 23778 of 2014, some threat to the law and order situation was also brought to the notice of this court. A Bench of this Court observed that the issue in W.P (C) No. 21627 of 2013 was closely interlinked with the issue projected in DBP No. 116 of 2012 (present case) and in the said circumstance, dispossession was interdicted until further orders were passed in the present DBP. A Bench of this Court observed that the issue in W.P (C) No. 21627 of 2013 was closely interlinked with the issue projected in DBP No. 116 of 2012 (present case) and in the said circumstance, dispossession was interdicted until further orders were passed in the present DBP. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as follows: “In the result, it is ordered as under: (i) W.P. (C) No. 21627 of 2013 will stand closed recording the submission that no dispossession will be effected without further orders in DBP No. 116 of 2012 or as may be further directed in that case. The direction given through the interim orders in W.P. (C) No. 21627 of 2013 that status quo shall be maintained and measurements can be taken would stand affirmed hereby. (ii) W.P. (C) No. 23778 of 2014 is ordered directing that the police will ensure the law and order is maintained and any apprehension or report of cognizable offence is dealt with in accordance with law.” 15. Based on the directions given by this Court on 06.06.2012, an affidavit dated 2.07.2012 has been filed on behalf of the additional 4th respondent/District Collector. It is stated that an enquiry was done by the District Collector as per the direction of the Supreme Court in Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board, 2007 (4) KLT 965 (SC) (in C.A. 3135 of 2007). The outcome is clearly given in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, which is reproduced below: “It is submitted that on going through the CDB Report No. 47/2012, it is understood that what is required is a report about the action taken by the District Collector as per the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3135/2007 in SLP No. 26712/2005 to hold an enquiry as to the circumstance in which the order dated 21.02.1976 in SMP No. 3458/1975 was passed on the file of the Special Tahsildar, L.R. No. II, Ernakulam and take consequential remedial action. As the Office of the Special Tahsildar LR No. II, Ernakulam was defunct and the records of the said office is kept in the Collectorate, Kottayam, it took quite a long time to trace out the file No. SMP No. 3458/75 as it was misplaced. At last the file has been made available on 28.06.2012. As the Office of the Special Tahsildar LR No. II, Ernakulam was defunct and the records of the said office is kept in the Collectorate, Kottayam, it took quite a long time to trace out the file No. SMP No. 3458/75 as it was misplaced. At last the file has been made available on 28.06.2012. On going through the records in it, it is seen that undue haste was shown in concluding the proceedings without following proper serving or publishing the statutory notices or conducting proper hearing and appreciating evidence. Following discrepancies are noticed: 1. The report of the Village Officer by which the tribunal initiated Suo motu proceedings under Section 72 of K.L.R. Act does not contain the date of the report, a Mahazar to identify the land or even the particulars by which he has determined the applicant Smt. Madhavi Parukutty Warrasyar, Karikodu Warriyam, Mulamthuruthy as a cultivating tenant of 21 cents of land in Sy. No. 1043 of Mulamthuruthy Village owned by Karikkodu Devaswom. 2. Both the individual notices and public notice in Form No. E and D respectively are seen issued on the same day, i.e. on 23.01.1976 posting the hearing on 04.02.76. Though the notice in Form E is seen serviced on Devaswom Officer on 28.01.1976, the name and designation of such officer who accepted the Notice or the name of the Peon who served the Notice on him are not seen written in the served copy kept in the file. Normally, the Notice in Form No. D, need be issued only after conducting hearing, appreciating evidence and fixing tenancy right of the applicant. 16. The report clearly shows that the District Collector had perused the re-survey records as well as the previous land records. It has been asserted that as per the village records prior to re-survey like Settlement Register, Tandapper register and Basic Tax Register, the land measuring 0.64 acres (64 cents) comprised in Sy. No. 1043 of Mulanthuruty Village was owned by Karikkode Devaswom. It was only in the re-survey, that the property came to be shown in the name of different persons as mentioned therein, after clubbing the said extent along with some other larger extents in other survey numbers as well. The District Collector has asserted that an extent of 64 cents in Sy. It was only in the re-survey, that the property came to be shown in the name of different persons as mentioned therein, after clubbing the said extent along with some other larger extents in other survey numbers as well. The District Collector has asserted that an extent of 64 cents in Sy. No. 1043 was lying in front of the temple as vacant land with two separate structures where sub-deities were installed; adding that this land cannot be said to be in the possession of any person other than the temple. After concluding the enquiry/fact finding exercise, the District Collector submits in paragraph 6 that there are sufficient grounds, owing to discrepancies and non-possession, to cancel the purchase certificate, but he is not empowered to do that, in turn seeking for appropriate orders from this Court to have remedial measures. We find that the task undertaken by the complainant to ensure that the property of the Devaswom is protected and preserved has ultimately brought out the plain truth that the said property was sought to be appropriated by strangers and that the property in Sy. No. 1042/2 has been successfully retrieved by the Devaswom, based on the intervention made by this Court and also by the Apex Court. Proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion in respect of the land in Sy. No. 1043 as well. This is more so since in view of the parens patriae jurisdiction being entrusted with this Court in this regard and there is a duty cast upon the Court to take every step to ensure that property of the deity is protected. We find support from the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Gopalakrishnan's case (cited supra). 17. In the above circumstances, we declare that Annexure R5(d)(e) and (f) Assignment Certificates bearing Nos. 587/1976, 586/1976 and 581/1976 in favour of Madhavi Parukutty Warasyar, Parukutty Saraswathy Warasyar and Ashok Kumar and Anuradha (children of Thankam Warasyar) are not valid certificates obtained in conformity with the relevant facts and provisions of law and they cannot confer any valid title upon the parties concerned. They stand set aside. It is for the Devaswom Board to take necessary proceedings to get the revenue records corrected accordingly, which shall be done within six months. Since the Apex Court has set the Devaswom at liberty to pursue further steps in relation to the property covered by Sy. They stand set aside. It is for the Devaswom Board to take necessary proceedings to get the revenue records corrected accordingly, which shall be done within six months. Since the Apex Court has set the Devaswom at liberty to pursue further steps in relation to the property covered by Sy. No. 1043, we find it appropriate to direct the Devaswom Board to pursue necessary proceedings in this regard as well at the earliest, at any rate within six months.