Dismissed

Dublin University Mission Property Protection Committee Thr Its Secretary Rajesh Andreus Nandi And v. Union of India through Ministry of Scheduled Tribe Affairs and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2023WPC/5740/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the sale of church properties. The bench held that questions regarding ownership and authority to sell such property are factual and require evidence, making them unsuitable for summary disposal in writ proceedings given pending civil suits.

What the court decided

AI extract

Dublin University Mission Property Protection Committee… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 5740 of 2014

¶3

----

¶4

Dublin University Mission Property Protection Committee, Haranganj, through its Secretary, Rajesh Andreus Nandi, PO PS Haranganj, Dist. Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶5

Mahesh Kashi S/o late Bittu Sahu, R/o House No.90A School Cocha, Dhomsa Toli, Chutia, Ranchi.

¶6

Pritesh Tirkey, S/o Uriel Tirkey, R/o PO College More, PS Sadar, Hearngunj, Hazaribagh.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India through Ministry of Scheduled Tribe Affairs, 750, A-wing, Sharti Bhawan, New Delhi 110001.

¶10

The Chairman, National Commission for Schedule Tribe, 6^th Floor, B-Wing, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶11

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat, Jharkhand.

¶12

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Civil Secretariat, Jharkhand.

¶13

State of Jharkhand through its Principal Secretary, Department of Registration and Stamp, Civil Secretariat, Jharkhand.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. 7. Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5-B, 6^th Floor, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

¶15

C.N.D.T.A. through its alleged Bishop, H.B. Road, Ranchi.

¶16

Rt. Rev. Basil Bleo Baskey, Bishop of Chotanagpur, Diocese Church of North India & alleged Ex-Officio Member of CNDTA, R/o Bishop’s Lodge, Old H.B. Road, Post Box No.1, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶17

Sidhi Vinayak Developers, Kolghatti, PO PS Sadar, Hazaribagh.

¶18

Mr. Alwan Masih, General Secretary, Church of North India, CNI Bhawan, 16 Pandit Marg, New Delhi.

¶19

Moderator, Synod, Church of North India, Office-16 Pandit Pant Marg, New Delhi 110001.

¶20

… Respondents

¶21

----

¶22

CORAM : SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶23

----

¶24

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit, AC to AAG 1

¶25

Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate

¶26

Mr. Tarun Kumar Mahto, Advocate

¶27

----

¶28

29/ 08.09.2023 Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following (Per Ananda Sen, J.):-

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have for the following reliefs:-

¶31

¶32

(i) to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus directing C.B.I. to investigate the illegal sale of Church Properties in connivance with the State authorities in the State of Jharkhand; (ii) to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to act after making enquiry and to declare the sale deed executed by Church authorities as void ab initio.

¶33

(iii) to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties directing them not to accept the deed of sale and transfer of the Church Properties mentioned in the list.

¶34

(iv) to issue writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties especially respondent No.6 to restrain the illegal construction forthwith over the land of Chano No.1, Thana 148, Khata No.18, Plot No.33 and 65.

¶35

2. Petitioner No.1 is a committee of general members of Christian community belonging to Schedule Tribes. The subject matter of this public interest litigation is the agricultural land of Mouja Chano No.1, Thana 148, Khata No. 18, Plot No.33, 33/73, 74, 75, 76 , 78, 79, 80, 65/84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90 & 65, total area 41.37 acres in district Hazaribagh which belongs to the Church along with some other land in various other districts of Jharkhand diocese which were being sold out by the respondents.

¶36

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents, who are not authorized to sell the property of Church, are transferring lands of the Christian Society. A complaint case being Complaint Case No. 1589 of 2014 was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh and the Court below had directed to lodge an FIR on 21.8.2014 but till date FIR has not lodged. Further, the District authorities are carrying out mutation proceeding without verifying the records. The petitioners had given several applications to higher authorities of the state as well as Church authorities, but no action is being taken.

¶37

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Church authorities are transferring the property, which was kept for the benefits of tribal Christian Society. These lands are sold for constructing flats, hotels and markets. He submit that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by Privy Council that the Church authorities are only entitled to look after the property as trustee and are not entitled to sell or transfer any such

¶38

¶39

property. He further submits that the Church authorities are transferring the property in their own interest.

¶40

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there are several lands in the district of Hazaribag including the land in dispute, in the name of Dublin University Mission which was later on incorporated as Dublin University Mission Trust Association. This association was merged with Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) and the ownership came in control of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association by virtue of order passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in Company Petition No.4 of 1962. He submits that Article 67 (1) of the Article of Association of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association, empowers the committee to deal with the property either to sell, purchase, exchange or letting it out. The State Government also recognizes CNDTA as owner of the property. In past few years the persons, with vested interests along with the petitioners, are trying to interfere with the ownership of CNDTA and challenging its authority. There are suits pending before the Civil Court being T.S No.104 of 2011 and T.S No. 64 of 2013 etc. in which the matter of transfer of land is sub-judice. A criminal case being Hazaribagh Sadar P.S Case No.1076 of 2015 was also lodged by the petitioners in which final form was submitted for which a protest petition was filed which was registered as Complaint Case No.191 of 2019. He further submits that the petitioners have vested and personal interests in the subject matter of this litigation.

¶41

6. After hearing both the parties and going through the pleadings, we prima facie find that lands in question belong to the Church, which were sold by the Church authorities. The ownership of the land came in control of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association by virtue of order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Company Petition No. 4 of 1962.

¶42

7. It is an admitted fact that several Title Suits are pending in relation to the disputed land. As per the respondents, Article 67 (1) of the Article of Association of Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association, empowers the committee to deal with the property either to sell, purchase, exchange or letting it out. The State Government also recognizes CNDTA as owner of the property. Thus, it prima facie seems that the Church authorities are transferring the lands under such capacity.

¶43

8. Further, the dispute in question relates to administration of landed property and selling of the same by the Church. The basic question, which needs to be decided, is right, title and interest over the property, which is being

¶44

¶45

sold and whether the Chhotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) has any right over the property and has any authority to sell the land. Dublin Mission is ascertaining their right over the property and claim that they have ownership right and even the right to sell, whereas the petitioner claims that the respondents do not have a right to sell the property. Essentially, these are the questions, which need leading of evidence and, thus, cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶46

9. Furthermore, title suits are already pending wherein the issue as to who is the owner of the property and whether Chhotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) has authority to sell the property are to be decided. Thus, we feel that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the issues cannot be decided. If any property has been sold by the Chhotanagpur Diocesan Trust Association (CNDTA) and the petitioners are challenging the said sale, they will be at liberty to file an appropriate suit for annulling the sale of the land and may also pray for setting aside the sale deeds. Such suit should be brought before the appropriate Civil Court having jurisdiction, which should be decided as per law and the evidence led by the parties. Public Interest Litigation is not the forum to raise these issues.

¶47

10. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that too by way of Public Interest Litigation, is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶48

11. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.

¶49

12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶50

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶51

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶52

Kumar/Cp-02

Dublin University Mission Property Protection Committee Thr Its Secretary Rajesh Andreus Nandi And v. Union of India through Ministry of Scheduled Tribe Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dublin University Mission Property Protection Committee Thr Its Secretary Rajesh Andreus Nandi And v. Union of India through Ministry of Scheduled Tribe Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Ramashray Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ms the Rameshwara Jute Mills Ltd. through K K Dubey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

M/S Advance Business Corporate through Its Proprietor Amrita Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basant Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. through Its Authorised Representative Mr Rajnish Kumar Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through Its General Manager