WP(C)/24/2008 of Ms Alembic Ltd. Vs Sub- Registrar, East Sikkim and Ors. on 23 August 2012

-I.

SGPG- 1/Comp.4migh Court / 20oo[NOs.ra5.04..2012]

Case No

Order (s) with Signature (s)Following issues are framed in the present case.1. Whether the objectors have any locus standi in the caseand whether Dutchi Committee has any power to transfer tlieland of Monastery to a third party.2, Whether the registration has been done as per theprocedure prescribed by Sikkim Registration Rules, 1930.3. Competency and jurisdiction of the present court to de-register the Lease Deed document.The decision on the above mentioned three issues is as under:1. The objectors in the present case are the residents ofthe 13 blocks which is covered by the Rumtek Monastery. Theland of the Rumtek Monastery belongs to the devotees and isfor the purpose of welfare of the Monastery. Dutchi Committeeis only given the responsibility of managing the affairs of theMonastery. If the land which belongs to the public institutionssuch as Rumtek Monastery is sold to a commercialorganization, devotees are well within their rights to object tothe registration process. The issue of authority of the DutchiCommittee to dispose off the land will be addressed at a laterstage if found necessary as title of the land is not disputed.2. Tlie fact that one month notice was issued by Sub-Registrar and objection dated 16/11/2007 was filed by 16persons, has not been denied by the Opposite Party DutchiCommittee and Alembic Company. It is also a fact thatobjection was withdrawn by only three persons and identity ofthe three persons js also doubtful and needs to be verified. Asa principle of natural justice, jt is mandatory that jf during thenotice period an objection has been filed by an interested party,same should have been heard and disposed off as per law. Thesame has not been done in the present case.Hence, I am satisfied that prescribed procedure has notbeen followed in the present case and lease deed should be de-registered due to procedural anomalies.3. The orders Of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court andHon'ble Andhra Pradesh Court quoted by the Learned Counselof the Dutchi Committee are not applicable a SikkimRegistration Rule at para 23 says proceeding should have beenadjourned in case objection is raised by any party withoutdeciding into the title by the registering authority. As in thepresent case, once objection was raised by the petitioner partysame was not disposed and parties were not directed to movethe appropriate Court to decide on the authority of the DutchiCommittee to dispose off the land. As the registration done isprocedurally wrong and Sub-F`egistrar is well within its power tocorrect the anomalies without going into the merit of the case.Accordingly, I, Vishal Chauhan, Sub-Registrar, EastDistrict, pass an order for cancellation of Lease Deed of landowned by Rumtek Monastery executed by the DutchiCommittee in favour Of Alembic (P) Ltd. M/s Alembic (P) Ltd. is Case No Case No

Case No

Case No

Order (s) with Signature (s)representation dated 16.11.2007 has not been disclosed orrevealed. Therefore, it is difficult to say whether theywere interested persons or had any right of hearing or toraise objection in respect to the registration of thedocument between Monastery and a petitioner-Company.No inquiry whatsoever in this regard was conducted by theSub-Registrar at the time of passing the impugned order.This aspect per-se is sufficient to set aside the impugnedorder.14. At this stage, without going into the question ofjurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar to pass the impugnedorder as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner,the impugned order dated 25.08.2008 is hereby set asideand the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 forpassing a fresh order after according hearing to thepetitioner, who shall have the liberty to file writtenobjections, as no such liberty was granted to it at the timeof passing of the impugned order. However, the Sub-Registrar will hear the petitioner, the Monastery and thecomplainants/ representationists numbering 16 includingrespondents No. 2 to 5. Mr. Tashi Norbu Basi, the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 5 submitsthat only the representationists No. 1 to 16 (which include Date Case No Order (s) with Signature (s)two respondents) in the Xerox copy of the representationdated 16.11.2007, placed on record as Annexure P-8,whose identity is known be allowed to appear before theSub-Registrar. Thus the right of hearing before the Sub-Registrar shall be confined to the representationists at SI.No. 1 to 16 in representation dated 16.11.2007, threeremaining respondents amongst No. 2 to 5, the petitionerand the performa respondent No. 6, the Monastery. TheSub-Registrar will hear the parties only in respect to theobjections dated 16.11.2007 and 05.06.2008. It is furthermade clear that the parties before this Court shall have theright to place before the Sub-Registrar any documentwhich is part of the present writ petition as part of theirsubmissions in support of their respective contentions.15. The parties, particularly, the petitioner and therespondent No. 6 shall have the right to question thejurisdiction of the respondent No. 1, who shall decide thesame as well while passing fresh order. It is furtherclarified that appearance of the petitioner and respondentNo. 6 before the Sub-Registrar pursuant to this order shallnot be construed to be an estoppel against their right ifthey chose to object to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1in any future proceedings.

Case No