REV. C. CARNILIUS Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner by the instant petition has prayed for the following relief(s):

(2.) THE Petitioner is the Executive Secretary of the M.P. Regional Conference Methodist Church in India (for brevity "the Church"), Jagdapur. THE case of the Petitioner is that it held 68.87 acres of land. This land was a part of the land from grant in the last century from 3.4.1893. 52.34 acres of land was granted for building purposes and 975 acres of land was granted for establishing village and to bring the land under cultivation. Another indenture of lease for 16.27 acres of land was executed by Rani of Bastar Estate on 23.3.1923 in favour of the Church. A dispute arose between the State Government and the Church regarding renewal of lease of the said land. THE Church surrendered 975 acres of land to the State. THE Church invested huge amount of Rs. 50 lacs in buildings and other activities over the land and its possession. However, full area of the land was not occupied. THE State Government constructed a road over the Church's land bifurcating the same without consent of the Church. THE State/Respondent No. 1 issued a show cause notice to show cause as to why lease of the unocqupied land be not cancelled. THE Church also filed a writ petition bearing W.P.M.P. No. 805/82, Superintendent, Methodist Episcopal Church, Jagdalpur v. Collector, Jagdalpur and Ors., which was decided on 30th September, 1988 (Annexure P/1). In the said petition, stand of the Church was that the lands were granted on permanent lease and only the rent could be revised; the Church was a lessee and this fact was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 29.4.1975; and the order of cancellation of lease was in violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution. Whereas the Respondents contended that the Petitioner did not utilize the leased land area of 69.65 acres for the purposes specified; the Petitioner was in possession of only 54.50 acres of land, which was utilized for building site. THE parties to the writ petition entered into negotiation, which resulted into decision that the area marked in red colour in the map of Annexure P/2 be surrendered to the Government, the remaining area would continue to remain with the Petitioner's Church and lease for the remaining area mentioned in the map may be renewed. THE above understanding arrived at between the parties was recorded in paragraph-9 of the order of Annexure P/1. THE High Court came to a finding that the Respondents had resumed possession of the land described in Annexure P/2 referred to as Annexure N in W.P.M.P. No. 805/82. THE State undertook not to disturb the Petitioner's possession. THE Petitioner was required to deliver possession of the vacant land shown in the map of Annexure P/2 in red colour bounded by letters A, B, C, D, E, F and the State, on their part, agreed for renewal of lease of the remaining land shown in Annexure P/2. However, the Respondents have failed to execute lease deed for the remaining 44.07 acres of land. Only short term lease for 30 years was executed for about 10 acres of land only.

(3.) THE State/Respondents No. 1 and 2 in its return have averred that the instant petition is based on wrong interpretation of the order of the High Court in W.P.M.P. No. 805/82. THE High Court vide its order dated 30.9.1988 held that the matter has already been negotiated and settled down between the parties in terms whereof the lease, whereupon the buildings, belonging to the Church, are standing, was to be executed in favour of the Petitioner and possession of the remaining lands was required to be handed over to the Government and in this view of the matter, the Respondents were directed not to disturb possession of the Petitioner over the land where the said buildings were standing and execute lease deed in favour of the Petitioner in respect of said land i.e. the land where buildings of the Petitioner are standing.