COUNCIL OF EVANGELICAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, SIKKIM Vs. SUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Point for decision in this Writ Petition is whether 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).

(2.) 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 the Sub-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, (Annexure P/3) alleging "that all the Churches in Sikkim under the partnership with C. N. 1. 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. Thereafter a complaint was made by respondent No. 3, Mani Kumar Rai, before the SDM Ravongla against that order of correction. But the alleged correction already made was confirmed by him on 21-7-93 vide Annexure P/4. This led to the filing of a Civil Application/Appeal No. 3 of 1993 under Rules 5 and 6 of 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 have been challenged by this writ petition.

(3.) The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner during arguments is that the Land Revenue Secretary is not the Registrar under the Registration Rules. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have controverted this plea in the counter affidavit filed by them.