UNION OF INDIA Vs. IMMACULATE CONCEPTION CHURCH BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are the Central Government and the Defence Estate Officer, Karnataka Circle, Kamaraj Road, Bangalore. PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-1989 in Miscel laneous Proceedings No. 34/1989 by which the Charity Commissioner, Belgaum, has accorded permission to the applicant in the said miscellaneous proceeding, viz., The Immaculate Conception Church, Belgaum, represented by Most. Rev. Fr. Ignatius Lobo, Bishop of Belgaum, who is respondent No. 1 in this writ petition. The prayer is to quash the said order inter alia on the ground that it is without notice to the petitioners and such an order could not have been passed as there had been breach of conditions of grant of occupancy rights by the first petitioner in favour of respondent No. 1. The facts stated by the petitioners themselves are that certain general land No. 192 measuring 1 acre and 12 guntas in Belgaum Cantonment was granted to the Archbishop of Goa long ago. The first respondent, however, was permitted to occupy the land and errect buildings thereon. It is alleged that the land is the property of the Union Government but the building could be sold with the previous permission of the Central Government. From Annexure-A, it is clear that an application was made by the first respondent, Bishop of Belgaum, seeking permission under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, to alienate the trust property. The permission has been granted subject to the conditions enumerated in the order. The only ground on which the petitioners claim that the order is vitiated is that having regard to the entries in the land records, the Charity Commissioner ought to have notified the Government who was the owner of the land. That argument is not well-founded merely because the land stands to the name of the Central Government in the Index of Lands or the Land Register. Admittedly, the land was granted to the Archbishop as a grant. There after, the Bishop of Belgaum was permitted to construct building thereon. Therefore, the land records do not reflect the correct position in law. The land records should show that the occupant was the Bishop of Goa in whose favour Central Government had made the grant subject to the conditions of the grant. The grant deed is not produced in this Court. There is no evidence that Annexure-C to the petition was ever before the Charity Commissioner when he passed the order. Consequent upon the grant of permission by the Charity Commissioner, the third respondent is purchasing the property from the first respondent and fourth respondent is registering the document of sale. Therefore, the prayer to quash the order of the Charity Commissioner im pugned. This Court finds it difficult to accept that the Central Government is a necessary party to the proceedings before the Charity Commissioner in disposing of the application made by the first respondent. If the Central Government is affected by the permission granted and it is of the view that the land is vested in it and instrument sought to be registered now if allowed to stand will affect its right, then it should proceed to establish its title in the appropriate Civil Court having jurisdiction or seeking cancellation of the instrument which if allowed to stand affects its title, under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. Under Article 226, I am of the view, the High Court will not ordinarily adjudicate on questions of title. The prayer for quashing the order is one of asking title to the property indirectly which this Court cannot countenance. The petition is dismissed.