Church of South India (CSI) Trust Association Diocese of North Kerala, represented by its Bishop and the Treasurer and Attorney of Diocesan Office are the petitioners. Challenge is against Ext.P7 order issued by the Government. The issue pertains to assignment of 4.07 Acres of land comprised in Resurvey No.438/2A1 of Malappuram Village in Eranad Taluk. There exist a Church and burial ground within the said property which is under the possession of the petitioners. Originally this writ petition was filed when Ext.P5 notice was issued by the Village Officer restraining the petitioners from demarcating the land by putting stones without the permission of the District Collector. Subsequently during pendency of this writ petition, Ext.P7 order was issued by the Government assigning 36.7 cents out of the above said land free of cost to the petitioners Church, after retaining land required for expansion of the public road and further to assign 1.42 Acres of land under lease for a period of 30 years on a nominal rental of Rs.100 per year. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P7 on the basis that said order was issued without affording them any opportunity to establish their claims by producing documentary evidence or materials and without affording them any opportunity of personal hearing. 2. According to the petitioners, the Church in the land was established as earlier as in the year 1858 by the British Government for providing place of worship for Army men in the 'Heigs Barracks' situated in Malappuram. It is stated that the Church in question was also open for worship to civilians of the locality. It is stated that all the Military Churches were transferred to the British Government subsequently and got vested in the Indian Church. Thereafter based on formation of Church of South India in the year of 1947, administration of the Church in question came under the Diocese of North Kerala Church of South India, which is a unit of the Church of South India. It is stated that since then the Church was under the administration of the 1st petitioner and cemetery was continued to be used for burial of the members belonging to the Church. The petitioners rely upon Ext.P1 document executed in the year 1982 whereby the Church of South India Trust Association (1st petitioner) was nominated as Trustee of the property. It is conceded that the litigations were initiated before the civil court concerned by the petitioners to get declaration of title over the property, but was not successful. Further it is conceded that an injunction suit filed against the revenue authorities with respect to possession of the land in question had also failed. It is evident from Ext.P2 that proceedings for assignment of the land on the basis of request made by the petitioners were initiated as early as in the year 1983. Evidently the Government have forwarded a letter to the District Collector on 19.9.1983, admitting that on enquiry it was found that the Church is in possession of 2.40 Acres of land comprised in the above said survey number. It is further mentioned in Ext.P2 that remaining 1.67 acres is not in the possession of the Church. It is stated that, despite such a letter the District Collector has not taken any steps to forward the proposal for assignment of even the extent of 2.40 Acres. Meanwhile Ext.P5 notice was issued during the year 2005, which was the immediate provocation for filing this writ petition. From Ext.P7 it is evident that the assignment was ordered only with respect to 36.7 cents for the purpose of the Church, finding that the Church is situated within the said extent. It is also found that the extent of land wherein the cemetery is situated is only 1.42 acres. According to the petitioners those findings are arrived without considering documentary materials which are available to show the history with respect to the land and to show that the petitioners were in possession and enjoyment of more properties as claimed. Further, it is also contended that by virtue of the provisions contained in Indian Church Act, 1927 passed by the British Government and by virtue of Ext.P1, the petitioners have got title over the property. But, however it is to be noticed that the claim for declaration of title stands negative by verdict of the competent civil court. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners specifically pointed out that while issuing Ext.P7 the petitioners was not afforded with any opportunity of personal hearing and that they were not afforded with any opportunity to produce materials to substantiate their claims.
3. Respondents 5 to 10 are impleaded in the above writ petition contenting that they represent six different churches which are having no cemetery of their own. They claimed that some of them are using a part of purampoke land comprised in Survey No.430/2A1 as Cemetery for the last several years. It is mentioned that they were making repeated representations before the Government for assignment of the small extent of land for their exclusive use as cemetery. It is stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Perinthalmanna had convened a meeting in this regard and the matter with respect to request for assignment is in seizine of the revenue officials. It is pointed out that the petitioners claim for title over the property has already been declined by the competent civil court and they cannot claim any title or possession of the entire property. Therefore the additional respondents are opposing the relief sought for in this revision.
4. Having considered the factual situations as mentioned above, this court is of the considered opinion that Ext.P7 proceedings suffers from irregularity and infirmity to the extent of violation of principles of natural justice. The Government ought to have taken a decision with respect to the assignment of the land in question in
afforded with an opportunity of personal hearing. Therefore it is only just and proper to remit the matter for fresh consideration of the Government and for passing appropriate fresh orders. The Government shall also take note of the claim if any made by the additional respondents 5 to 10 while taking a fresh decision on the question of assignment.
5. Hence this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P7 order is hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to reconsider the matter and to take an appropriate decision on the question of assignment of land to the petitioners or the additional respondents 5 to 10, after affording all concerned with opportunity of personal hearing.
6. A fresh decision shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SKV Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.