Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
(Per: Tarun Agarwala,J.) (Delivered on: 13th March, 2014) Prior to 10th May, 1939 there existed the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church South and the Methodist Protestant Church. It is contended that these three churches merged and became the Methodist Church. At some point of time, the Methodist Church in Southern Asia came into existence and was registered as a Society under The Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 was also registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The Methodist Church in India became the successor-in-interest of the Methodist Church in Southern Asia in 1982 and necessary amendment in the registration certificate was carried out under the Bombay Public Trust Act as well as under the Societies Registration Act.
It is contended that the Methodist Church in India has a large number of properties located at various places in India and that the properties at Bijnor was being looked after by the Moradabad Region of the Methodist Church in India. This Moradabad Region took a decision with prior approval of the central body to sell some agricultural land in order to raise necessary funds for maintenance and management of the churches and its properties. This decision was taken on 5.4.2006, which was approved by the Managing Committee of the Executive Board of the Methodist Church of India on 29.6.2006. Based on the aforesaid decision, the Methodist Church of Moradabad Region issued an advertisement in two daily newspapers, namely, "Dainik Jagran" and "Rastriya Vedana" inviting tenders for sale of the land measuring 2.5453 hectares in Mission Compound, Bijnor. It was contended that the land in question was recorded as an agricultural land in the revenue record.
The petitioners submitted a bid of Rs.3.7 Crores, which after negotiation was increased to Rs.4.21 Crores and eventually, the said offer was accepted by the Executive Board of the Moradabad Region on 26.11.2006. While accepting the offer, it was made clear, that the payment was to be done by means of a bank draft in the name of the Executive Board of the Methodist Church in India, payable at Mumbai where the Society was registered and its Head Office was located.
Pursuant to the offer being accepted by the Methodist Church in India, an application under Section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., was filed by the Methodist Church before the District Judge, Bijnor seeking permission to sell the land. The Additional District Judge, by its order dated 21.4.2007, granted permission subject to certain conditions, namely:
(a)That the payment would be made directly in the name of the Methodist Church in India, and
(b)The amount would be used to maintain the remaining property of the Methodist Mission Compound at Bijnor.
The regional body Moradabad of the Methodist Church in India also filed an application before the District Magistrate seeking permission to sell the land. This was done on account of an interim order dated 7.4.2000, passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1523 (M.B.) of 2000, on the basis of which a Government Order dated 10.8.2000 was issued. The Division Bench in its order dated 7.4.2000 took notice of the fact that a large number of properties of the churches were being alienated or encroached upon and constructions were also being raised and, therefore, directed the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. to alert all the District Magistrate to take appropriate action with regard to the land of the churches. Based on this interim order, the Government of U.P. issued a Government Order dated 10.8.2000 intimating all the District Magistrate that wherever sale deeds of the properties of the churches are involved, the District Magistrate should consider the provisions of Sections 1 and 3 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the Charitable Endowment Act, 1980, the Land Record Manual and the Nazul Manual and wherever previous permission of the District Magistrate was required suitable orders should be passed by the District Magistrate after considering all aspect of the matter.
On the basis of the aforesaid Government Order, it became necessary for the Methodist Church of India to apply for permission. While the said application was pending, the petitioners prepared a bank draft of Rs.4.12 Crores on 5th May, 2007 in favour of the Methodist Church in India and purchased stamp paper for Rs.56,22,000/- for the purpose of execution of the sale-deed. The sale deed was also presented before the Sub Registrar, Bijnor, but before it could be executed, the District Magistrate issued an order dated 27.2.2010 directing the Sub Registrar not to register the sale-deed and, subsequently, by an order dated 23.4.2010, the District Magistrate issued an order refusing to grant permission to the Methodist Church in India to sell the land. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.34174 of 2010, which was entertained and an interim order dated 9.6.2010 was issued staying the effect and operation of the orders of the District Magistrate. Based on the interim order, the sale-deed was again presented before the Sub Registrar, which was accepted and registered on 15.6.2010. The District Magistrate thereafter issued an order dated 19.6.2010 holding that the sale deed so executed is null and void. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this order of the District Magistrate, have filed the present writ petition.
Both the writ petitions have been clubbed and are being decided together.
Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri B.C. Rai, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.B. Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State-respondent and Sri Pramod Jain, the learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Sri Shashi Nandan, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Government Order dated 10.8.2000 has not been violated and that no previous permission was required to be taken from the District Magistrate unless the law permitted such permission to be obtained from the District Magistrate. The Government Order dated 10.8.2000 only required the District Magistrate to peruse the provisions of the Charitable Endowment Act, the Land Record Manual and the Place of Worship Act and wherever permission was required, in which case appropriate order was required to be passed. The learned counsel further submitted that the Place of Worship Act was not violated and that the land sold was an agricultural land, which land was not a "place of worship" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the order of the District Magistrate dated 22.2.2010 directing the Sub Registrar not to register the sale deed and the order dated 23.4.2010 refusing to grant permission was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the District Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing its order dated 19.6.2010 holding that the sale-deed so executed between the petitioners and the Methodist Church of India was null and void. The learned senior counsel submitted that only a Civil Court had jurisdiction to declare the sale-deed as null and void and that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue such orders.
On the other hand, Sri C.B.Yadav, the learned senior counsel as well as the Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submitted that the sale-deed was executed in violation of Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. The learned counsel submitted that the Methodist Church in India was admittedly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act and, therefore, before selling any property it was required to take previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:
"36. Alienation of immovable property of public trust :
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the instrument of trust -
(a) no sale, mortgage, exchange or gift or any immovable property, and
(b) no lease for a period exceeding ten years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or a building, belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Charity Commissioner."
The Additional Advocate General submitted that since no previous permission was taken from the Charity Commissioner, the sale deed was void and the orders of the District Magistrate did not require any interference.
Sri P.K.Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the Regional Executive Board, Moradabad of Methodist Church in India submitted that no permission was required to be taken from the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Nautam Prakash DGSVC, VADTAL and others vs. K.K.Thakkar and others, 2006(5)SCC 330.
The learned counsel further submitted, that necessary permission under Section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., was taken from the Competent Authority and based on such permission the sale deed was executed. The learned counsel submitted that the Government Order dated 10.8.2000 did not place any impediment upon the said respondent in selling the land nor previous permission was required.
In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 was enacted in order to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15th day of August, 1947. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the place of worship as under:
"(c) "place of worship" means a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery or any other place of public religious worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof, by whatever name called."
Section 3 places a bar on a person from converting any place of worship into a place of worship of a different section. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:
"No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereto into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof."
Section 4 provides for a declaration that the religious character of a place of worship existing on 15th day of August,1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that date.
From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the bar contained under the Act of 1991 is with regard to the place of worship, meaning thereby a temple, mosque, gurudwara, church, monastery, etc. In the instant case, the Methodist Church of India has sold an agricultural land, which is recorded as such in the revenue record. The land in question is not a place of worship. The respondents have not indicated in their counter affidavit that the land in question comes under the definition clause 2(c), namely, place of worship.
The Government Order dated 10.8.2000 was issued in pursuance of an interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court dated 7.4.2000, wherein the Court noticed that a large number of properties of the Church was being alienated and consequently, directed the Chief Secretary to alert the District Magistrate. The Government Order dated 10.8.2000 only directed the District Magistrate to consider every aspect of the matter and consider the Acts, namely, the Act of 1991, the Charitable Endowment Act, the Land Record Manual and the Nazul Manual while considering any land of the churches and grant permission wherever such permission was required. The Government order dated 10.8.2000 did not mean that the District Magistrate was duty bound not to grant permission in every case. The Government Order only instructed the District Magistrate to consider the provision of these Acts and the Manuals and grant permission, if necessary, after considering all aspect of the matter.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court finds that there is nothing on record to indicate that previous permission was required in the instant case from the District Magistrate. When the land that was being sold was an agricultural land and was not a place of worship, the District Magistrate could not refuse to grant permission nor could it direct the Sub Registrar not to register the sale-deed. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the provisions of the Charitable Endowment Act, the Nazul Manual or the Revenue Manual has been violated.
The contention of the Additional Advocate General, that previous permission was required to be obtained by the Methodist Church of India from the Charity Commissioner, under Section 36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, is patently erroneous. The Supreme Court in the case of Nautam Prakash (supra) held that the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner was only confined to the property which was situated within the Maharashtra Region. In the instant case, the property is located in Uttar Pradesh and consequently, was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner Bombay. The Court is of the opinion that no such permission was required to be obtained from the Charity Commissioner, Bombay under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The Court also finds that at the relevant moment of time Section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P., was operative and, in pursuance thereof, the respondent No.3 applied for permission from the District Judge, which was granted subject to certain terms. Nothing has been indicated in the impugned orders that the terms indicated in the order of the Additional District Judge was violated.
The order of the District Magistrate, declaring the sale-deed as null and void, is patently illegal and without jurisdiction. We have already held that the Government Order dated 10.8.2000 was not violated nor any provision of the Place of Worship Act or the Charitable Endowment Act or the Land Record Manual or Nazul Manual has been violated. The attempt of the District Magistrate in its order indicating that the Government Order dated 20.8.2000 issued a mandate to the District Magistrate to refuse permission in all cases where property of the church was involved, is patently erroneous. The Court finds that the District Magistrate had no power to declare a sale-deed as null and void. This power is given exclusively to a Civil Court, which can only declare a document as null and void.
In the light of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion, that the impugned orders dated 27.2.2010, 23.4.2010 and 19.6.2010 are patently illegal being issued without any authority of law and are accordingly quashed.
Both the writ petitions are allowed.
In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.
Dated: 13th March, 2014.
AKJ.