COUNCIL OF EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERTIAN CHURCH, SIKKIM Vs. S.D.M. RAVONGLA, SOUTH SIKKIM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Mani Kumar Rai, who has been impleaded as respondent No 3, executed a sale deed in favour of the Church of North India, Damthang, in respect of a plot situated at Dew Block, Damthang, South Sikkim and the same was registered by Suo-Registrar, Ravongla, South Sikkim, on 5-12-1989. On 28-3-1993, Shri K. B. Gurung, General Secretary of the petitioner, filed an application before the District Collector, South Sikkim, alleging that "all the Churches in Sikkim under the partnership with C. N. I. has come back.to the own banner Council of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Sikkim, and, therefore, the land record of Damthang Church might be corrected into the aforesaid name. Correction was made in the land revenue records of Ravongla in the name of the petitioner by the S. D. M., Ravongla. Thereafter, an application was made by respondent No. 3, Shri Mani Kumar Rai, before the S. D. M. Ravongla against that correction. However, the alleged correction already made was confirmed by him on 21-7-93 vide Annexure P/4 of Writ Petition No. 2/94. This led to the filing of Appeal No. 3 of 1993 under the Registration Rules. That was allowed by respondent No. 2 who is the Secretary. Land Revenue Department and appellate authority on 10-3-1994. Following this order a notice was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Registrar, Ravongla, requiring the petitioner to submit the original sale deed document and also to vacate the church building standing on the plot in question. Both, the order dated 10-3-94 and the notice dated 16-4-94, (Annexure P-8) were challenged by Writ Petition No. 2/94 in this Court. One of the grounds taken in the Writ Petition was that the impugned order was passed by respondent No. 2 as the appellate authority by assuming a jurisdiction which was not vested in him under the Registration Rules, 1930 or any other law and there was no scope for preferring any appeal before respondent No. 2.

(2.) The writ petition was disposed of on 7-10-94. The only point which was considered at that time was whether respondent No. 2 i.e. the Secretary Land Revenue Department, Government of Sikkim, is the Registrar for the purpose of the Sikkim State Rules Registration of Document 1930, (hereinafter referred to as the Registration Rules). It was held that the incumbent of the office of the Land Revenue Secretary is the Registrar. The writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently, C. M. S. No. 1/94, was filed by the petitioner to seek some clarification. On 6-12-94 a consent order was passed deleting last paragraph in the notice dated 16-4-94 (Annexure P-8 in the original writ petition) which reads as under:-

(3.) I have heard Shri A. Moulik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Miss K. Chuki, Govt. Advocate on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri K. T. Bhutia, advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3. Shri Moulik has submitted that the land records are maintained by the office of the Collector who has the jurisdiction to decide about any question with regard to mutation or correction of records. According to him, this power is exercised by him or by the S. D. M. on his behalf, not in exercise of the Registration Rules but as the keeper of the records. He further submits that the sale deed is in possession of the petitioner and actual physcial possession of the land is also of the petitioner and the petitioner can be dispossessed of the document as also of actual physical possession of the land only on the basis of a decree of a Civil Court, and therefore, if respondent No. 3 or any other person has any grievance in the matter, he should approach the Civil Court for adjudication of the civil rights. On the other hand, Shri Bhutia submits that under Rule 5 of the Registration Rules, every Sub-Registrar in Sikkim has the jurisdiction to perform the duties of his office under the control and superintendence of the Gangtok Registrar and the latter has the jurisdiction to issue any orders he considers necessary in respect of any proceeding or omission of any Sub-Registrar subordinate to him. Further, he submits that the Registrar has the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the S. D. M. under Rule 6 which provides for an appeal before the Registrar. He also submits that the order passed by the Sub-Registrar for the alleged correction in the register was illegal and the Registrar merely asked the Sub-Registrar to make the correction in the register.