Jharkhand High Court
The Gossner Evangelical Lutheran ... vs Chief Secretory on 18 March, 2015
Author: Shree Chandrashekhar
Bench: Shree Chandrashekhar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 1034 of 2013
1. The Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chotanagpur and
Assam through its President Rev. Omlen Lugun, S/o Late Salan
Lugun, R/o Qr. No. F/54, New L.I.C. Colony, Rourkela, P.O.
Rourkela, P.S. Rajgangpur, Distt. Sundergarh
2. Christ Rejan Bara, S/o Late Ishak Bara, Vice President of the
Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chotanagpur and Assam,
R/o G.E.L. Church Local Mandali, Girja Toli, P.O. Kanasbahal, P.S.
Rajgangpur, Distt. Sundergarh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Registration Department, Govt. of
Jharkhand, Engineering Building, Sector 3, H.E.C. Dhurwa,
Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
3. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department,
Govt. of Jharkhand, Engineering Building, Sector 3, H.E.C.
Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
4. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Registration
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Engineering Building, Sector 3,
H.E.C. Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
5. Inspector of Registration offices, Registration Department, Govt.
of Jharkhand, Engineering Building, Sector 3, H.E.C. Dhurwa,
Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
6. Under Secretary, Registration Department, Govt. of Jharkhand,
Engineering Building, Sector 3, H.E.C. Dhurwa, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi
7. The Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi, Collectorate Building near Civil
Court, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi
8. The SubDivisional Officer, Ranchi, Collectorate Building near
Civil Court, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi
9. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, Collectorate Building near
Civil Court, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, Dist. Ranchi
10. Bishop Hemant Hansda, S/o Digar Hansda, R/o Jubilee
Bungalow, G.E.L. Church Comp., Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S.
Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi
2
11. Bishop Nelson Lakra, S/o Late Moses Lakra, R/o Pramukh's
House, G.E.L. Church Comp., Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S. Lower
Bazar, Dist. Ranchi
12. Bishop Sushil Kumar Jojo, S/o Luthar Jojo, R/o G.E.L. Church
Comp., Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi
13. Bishop Anand Sebeyan Hembrom, S/o John Hembram, R/o
G.E.L. Church, HRDC, Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
Dist. Ranchi
14. Christo Das Jojo, S/o Nirmal Jojo, R/o G.E.L. Church Comp.,
Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi
15. Premanand Soreng, S/o Late Dharam Prakash Soreng, R/o
G.E.L. Church Comp., Main Road, P.O.G.P.O., P.S. Lower Bazar,
Dist. Ranchi
16. Atal Irad Khess, S/o Late Hanuk Khess, R/o Gungutoli, P.O.
Church Road, P.S. Chutia, Dist. Ranchi ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Sanjit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, J.C. to A.G.
Order No. 05 Dated: 18.03.2015
Aggrieved by registration dated 16.11.2011 whereby
the Society namely, "the Gossner Evangelical Lutheran Church in
Chotanagpur and Assam" has been reregistered and challenging
orders dated 05.09.2012 and 06.09.2012, the present writ petition
has been filed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the Gossner
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Chotanagpur and Assam was
registered in the year, 1921 under the Societies Registration Act,
1860. The Society was registered for the purposes of welfare and
protection of religious sentiments and rights of the Christians. It is
stated that a leasedeed dated 17.06.1988 was executed by the
then President of the Society namely, Rev. Martin Tete in favour of
3
M/s Builders Enterprises. A dispute, in the meantime, arose with
respect to the genuineness of the leasedeed dated 17.06.1988.
The then President of the Society died on 11.06.1990 in
suspicious circumstances and thereafter, the antisocial elements
with greedy eyes over the properties of the Society managed to
oust the real followers. It appears that applications were made by
rival parties for reregistration of the Society and vide order dated
06.09.2012, application for reregistration was ordered. It is stated that ignoring order dated 16.11.2011, on the basis of an exparte enquiry report, vide order dated 06.09.2012, the application for reregistration of the Society presented by respondent nos. 10 to 16 has been allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
3. From the materials brought on record, there appears to be serious dispute between two rival factions claiming control over the Society. The faction led by one Rev. Omlen Lugun has claimed that they have been forcibly evicted from the office of the Society and they have claimed themselves the real office bearers of the Society. The petitioners are aggrieved by reregistration dated 06.09.2012 of the Society on the application submitted by respondent nos. 10 to 16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before taking a decision for reregistration of the Society on the application submitted by the respondent nos. 10 to 16, a notice was required to be issued to the petitioners which has not been done in the present case and therefore, interference of this Court is required in the matter. The submission raised on behalf of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. The issue in the present writ petition involves serious disputed questions of fact. Whether a notice was issued to the petitioners or not and whether a notice was required to be issued to the petitioners or not, are the questions into which, I am not inclined to go into. Moreover, from the enquiry report it does not 4 appear that a notice was given to respondent nos. 10 to 16. The petitioners are aggrieved by reregistration dated 06.09.2012 of the Society. The learned counsel for the respondentState of Jharkhand has rightly pointed out that the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the Civil Court seeking cancellation of registration dated 06.09.2012.
4. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, a liberty is reserved with the petitioners to work out remedies, in accordance with law. It is also clarified that filing of the present writ petition by one Rev. Omlen Lugun would not be construed as recognising his right to represent the Society.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish/N.A.F.R.