JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J. The Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), a statutory body constituted under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act , 1950, has filed the present Writ Petition challenging Ext.P7 report issued by the District Survey Superintendent. The principal prayer sought in the Writ Petition is to quash Ext.P7 issued by the 3rd respondent and to issue a further direction to the said respondent to conduct a joint survey along with the Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit of the TDB. The petitioner has also sought a declaration that respondent Nos. 7 to 21 be restrained from interfering with the rights of the petitioner to perform the Arattu ritual of Chirakkal Mahadeva Temple through the access situated in Survey No. 167/9 of Parakkadavu Village. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a vast extent of properties, including those comprised in Survey No. 167/9, originally belonged to the Chirakkal Devaswom. It is contended that, as per the resurvey records of Parakkadavu Village in Aluva Taluk, the temple is situated in an extent of 24 Ares (59.28 cents) of land in Block No. 5, Re Survey No. 351/3. The temple was also in possession of property having an extent of 64 cents in old Survey No. 167/8. On the western side of the temple, the temple pond is situated and the same falls in old Survey No. 169/1 and is having an extent of 3.19 Acres. 2.2 The petitioner asserts that, from time immemorial, the properties situated in Sy. No. 167/9 and on the southern side of the temple property have been used by the temple for festival purposes. It is contended that there exists a passage on the southern side of the temple running east to west leading to the temple pond, and that the only access to the pond is through the property in Survey No. 167/9. The p etitioner alleges that access to the Arattu Kulam is being obstructed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8, and that attempts were made to construct a compound wall so as to permanently block access to the temple pond situated on the eastern side of the temple. 2.3 The petitioner further asserts that, in or about the year 2013, certain devotees approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2310 of 2023. 7 and 8, and that attempts were made to construct a compound wall so as to permanently block access to the temple pond situated on the eastern side of the temple. 2.3 The petitioner further asserts that, in or about the year 2013, certain devotees approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2310 of 2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment after considering the rival contentions, wherein directions were issued to the Special Tahsildar, Land Conservancy Unit of the TDB, to proceed with action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957, against encroachments, if any, after complying with the principles of natural justice and in accordance with law. 2.4 The petitioner states that, in purported compliance with the directions issued in Ext.P3, three i ndividuals were evicted pursuant to proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act , 1957. It is further contended that on 29.01.2025, the 7th respondent attempted to enclose the Arattu Vazhi situated in Survey No. 167/9 by constructing a compound wall. In the said circumstances, the Board approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 5575 of 2025, and by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed the District Survey Superintendent, Ernakulam, to finalise the proceedings already initiated by the Special Tahsildar (Land Conservancy) in terms of the earlier judgment, with notice to all concerned parties. 2.5 The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent, without fully complying with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment and without properly verifying the revenue records, issued Ext.P7 report. It is contended that the entries contained in the land registers maintained by the Devaswom were not even adverted to in the report prepared by the District Survey Superintendent. 2.6 The petitioner further asserts that, in the meantime, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 approached the Munsiff Court, Aluva, and instituted O.S. No. 58 of 2025 seeking an order of injunction against members of the Temple Advisory Committee without impleading the Devaswom as a party to the proceedings. 2.7 It is also asserted that the temple festival is scheduled to commence on 13th of February 2 026 and that there is every likelihood of the party respondents attempting to block the traditional Arattu Vazhi passing through Survey No. 167/9 by constructing a compound wall. 2.8 It is on the above assertions that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. 2.8 It is on the above assertions that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the counter a ffidavit filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8, it is contended that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has an effective statutory remedy against Ext.P7 by invoking Section 11 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act , 1961. It is further submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any r ecords to substantiate title of the Devaswom over the property in Survey No. 167/9 of Parakkadavu Village. 4. The respondents state that their late father, Mr. Parameswaran Nair, was a cultivating tenant under Vishnu Nagaswamy Namboothiri of Othika Mana and was in possession of 1.54 Acres of land comprised in Survey No. 167/9. It is submitted that Mr. Parameswaran Nair purchased the Janmom rights of the landlord as per Purchase Certificate No. 2755 of 1975 issued by the Parakkadavu Land Tribunal. Since then, late Mr. Parameswaran Nair was in absolute ownership, possession, and enjoyment of the said property. 5. The respondents have produced Ext.R7(a) Purchase Certificate No.2755/1975 dated 15.01.1974 issued by the Land Tribunal, Parakkadavu. It is further stated that Ext.R7(b) registered Will was executed by late Mr.Parameswaran Nair in f avour of respondent Nos. 7 and 8, and upon his death, they became absolute owners by testamentary succession. Subsequently, Partition Deed No. 3133/2014 of SRO Chengamanad dated 03.07.2014 was executed dividing the properties between them. Mutation has been effected and land tax is being remitted, evidenced by Exts. R7(c) and R7(d) tax receipts. 6. It is also contended that, after the partition, substantial portions of the property were alienated to third parties and that they are not in possession of any property belonging to the temple. They rely on proceedings pursuant to W.P.(C) No. 2310 of 2023 to contend that no Devaswom property is in their possession. They further state that O.S. No. 58 of 2025 was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Aluva, against individuals who obstructed construction of a boundary wall based on a valid building permit. The building permit was later challenged by the TDB before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, which granted a stay on 27.01.2026. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat directed stoppage of construction, and the work presently stands halted. 7. We have heard the submissions of Sri. The building permit was later challenged by the TDB before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, which granted a stay on 27.01.2026. Pursuant thereto, the Panchayat directed stoppage of construction, and the work presently stands halted. 7. We have heard the submissions of Sri. Santhosh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. S. Rajmohan, learned Government Pleader, Sri. Lakshmi Narayanan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. K.R. Prathish for respondent Nos. 7 and 8, Sri. D. Sreekumar for the 6th respondent, Sri. Anoop Elias for the 20th respondent, and Sri. Sunil Shankar for the 18th respondent. 8. Sri. Santhosh Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the TDB, submitted that Ext.P7 is unsustainable in law. He took us through the settlement registers and land registers to contend that the authority failed to peruse records maintained by the Devaswom and the Special Tahsildar before issuing Ext.P7. He specifically pointed out that the pond in Survey No. 351/4 was categorised as Government Poramboke, though admittedly it is in temple possession. It is further submitted that proceedings were initiated under the TCHRI Act to recover trespassed temple properties and that the building permit relied on by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 has already been stayed, and hence, construction obstructing the Arattu Vazhi cannot proceed. He submitted that the Arattu procession has to be carried out through the property comprised in Sy. No.167/9, and the respondents have no right to obstruct the same. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 controverted the submissions, contending that Ext.P7 was issued strictly in compliance with Court directions. If aggrieved, the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies. He relied on the Patta granted in 1975 and submitted that, in a writ under Article 226, this Court will not be justified in adjudicating title. Reliance was also placed on provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents supported the petitioner to the limited extent of usage of the Arattu Vazhi, submitting that the pathway has been used from time immemorial and that eastern access is unusable for the movement of elephants due to steps. He contended Ext.P7 was issued without proper verification of records. 11. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents supported the petitioner to the limited extent of usage of the Arattu Vazhi, submitting that the pathway has been used from time immemorial and that eastern access is unusable for the movement of elephants due to steps. He contended Ext.P7 was issued without proper verification of records. 11. The learned Government Pleader opposed the petitioner’s submissions, stating that Ext.P7 was issued after examining all revenue records, including settlement registers, resurvey records, litho plans, and documents produced by both sides. 12. We have considered the rival submissions advanced and perused Ext.P7. 13. The records reveal that the properties of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 lie on the southern side of the temple property. The records produced by the respondents 7 and 8 details the devolution of title. Photographs show a wall on the southern side of the temple, beyond which lies the passage to the pond, which lies towards the east. Ext.P7 sketch was issued pursuant to directions in Exts. P3 and P5. 14. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Section 11 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act provides an appellate remedy. Rule 101 specifies the appellate authority. Section 13A of the Act provides that the Collector can be approached by the party aggrieved by preferring a Revision Petition, and if the Collector is satisfied that the determination of such boundary should be modified or revised on the ground of any discrepancy, inaccuracy, defect or mistake crept in such determination, appropriate orders can be passed. Section 14 of the Act enables a party aggrieved by the determination of any boundary under Sections 9, 10 or 11 or aggrieved by an order passed by the Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 13A may institute a suit within the time mentioned therein. In the case on hand, we find that Ext.P7 was issued by a competent authority based on relevant records and on the basis of the directions issued by this Court. I n such circumstances, it is for the party aggrieved to approach the jurisdictional forum and seek appropriate reliefs. When such remedy is available, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. 15. I n such circumstances, it is for the party aggrieved to approach the jurisdictional forum and seek appropriate reliefs. When such remedy is available, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. 15. After we had dictated the order, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board submitted that, while passing Ext.P5 judgment, this Court had recorded the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 that they had no intention whatsoever to cause any obstruction to the Arattu Ezhunnallippu of Chirackal Mahadeva Temple conducted during the previous year. It is submitted that, pending finalisation of the proceedings before the revisional authority in the appeal proposed to be filed by the Devaswom, appropriate directions may be issued to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 not to obstruct the passage of the Arattu Ezhunnallippu through the customary pathway. It is further submitted that the temple festival is scheduled to commence on 13.02.2026, the Arattu is to be conducted on 22.02.2026, and the temple authorities may be permitted to carry out the customary Ezhunnallippu in accordance with established practice. 16. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 7 and 8 submitted that, though consent had been granted on the previous occasion, in view of various proceedings presently initiated against them, it would not be appropriate to grant any such permission at this stage. 17. We find that the Arattu Ezhunnallippu procession proceeds through the western side of the temple property and thereafter through the property belonging to respondent Nos. 7 and 8. The temple pond is situated on the western side, and admittedly, no constructions have been effected in that portion. There exists an access pathway leading to the temple pond, through which the procession has traditionally passed. We also take note of the fact that, during the previous year, this Court had granted permission for the Arattu Ezhunnallippu to pass through the property of respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Further, it is brought to our notice that the Local Self Government Tribunal has stayed the order granting permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to carry out construction in the said property. 18. 7 and 8. Further, it is brought to our notice that the Local Self Government Tribunal has stayed the order granting permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 to carry out construction in the said property. 18. Though this Writ Petition stands dismissed, we are of the considered view that, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, it would be appropriate to grant permission to the Devaswom to conduct the Arattu Ezhunnallippu scheduled on 22.02.2026 through the aforesaid pathway as a one-time measure. However, it is made clear that this concession shall not be treated or claimed as recognition of any customary right by the Devaswom nor shall be reckoned as conferring any right, title or interest. This order is passed solely to maintain law and order, preserving communal harmony, and that too for this year alone. The parties shall be bound by the orders passed by the jurisdictional forums where the disputes are pending.