Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 452 (ORI)

CUTTACK ORIYA BAPTIST CHURCH v. STATE OF ORISSA

2014-07-28

A.K.RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT : Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. - Challenging, inter alia, the action of the opposite parties in not providing a premium free land for construction of a church and a graveyard for the Christians within the C.D.A.-Bidanasi Project Area, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case of the petitioners are that after establishment of the C.D.A.-Bidanasi Project Area, some of the Baptists Christians became the inhabitants of the said locality and established C.D.A.-Bidanasi Prayer Fellowship under the patronage of Cuttack Oriya Baptist Church, petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 was established in 1822 and subsequently certain daughter churches were also established in different parts of the Cuttack town. Markat Nagar otherwise called Abhinab Bidanasi has got no place of worship for Christian minorities. While the matter stood thus, petitioner No. 1 filed an application on 18.01.1995 to the C.D.A. for allotment of a premium free plot of land. On 4.1.1997, vide Annexure-2, opposite party No. 2 allotted a plot of land measuring Ac. 0.38 in Bidanasi Project Area at Rs. 6,12,560/- excluding the cost for locational advantage. It was directed that final cost of the said land will be intimated at the time of delivery of advance possession of the land. A further direction was made to deposit the said amount with C.D.A. at an early date. It was not possible on the part of petitioner No. 1 to deposit the said cost of the land. On 2.3.2002, petitioner No. 1 deposited a nominal token money of Rs. 10,001/- towards the plot with a representation. Since opposite party No. 2 did not take any action, petitioner No. 1 moved the Lok Pal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. In the said case, opposite party No. 3 appeared. After hearing the parties, the Lok Pal closed the case. It is further stated that in Bhubaneswar, the Government have allotted a plot for the purpose of Church and thereafter a Church has been constructed over the said land. Furthermore, when opposite party No. 2 allowed inhabitants of the other community for construction of their place of worship like Temples and Pandals and gave financial assistance for construction of Mandaps/Debasthali over the said land, the minority Christians should have been allotted a plot for the purpose of performance of their religious worship and rituals. Furthermore, when opposite party No. 2 allowed inhabitants of the other community for construction of their place of worship like Temples and Pandals and gave financial assistance for construction of Mandaps/Debasthali over the said land, the minority Christians should have been allotted a plot for the purpose of performance of their religious worship and rituals. The inaction of the opposite parties infringes the rights of the petitioners under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. With the aforesaid backdrop, a prayer has been made for a direction to the opposite parties to give physical possession of the land in favour of petitioner No. 1 pursuant to the allotment letter dated 4.1.1997 by waiving the huge premium cost of land for the interest of the inhabitants of minority community Christians residing within the Markat Nagar locality for the purpose of construction of Church and graveyard. 2. Though notice was issued to opposite parties 2 and 3 by special messenger, no counter affidavit has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Dayananda Mohapatra, learned counsel for the opposite parties 2 and 3-CDA. 4. The main plank of submission of Mr. Mishra is that the Government have allotted a plot of land in Bhubaneswar for construction of a Church. Thus there is no rhyme or reason not to allot any plot in Markat Nagar area. He further submits that not allowing a premium free land for construction of a church and a graveyard infringes the rights of the Christians under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. 5. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Mishra has no legs to stand. Considering the application of petitioner No. 1, opposite party No. 2 allotted a plot on 4.1.1997, vide Annexure-2, subject to the condition that petitioner No. 1 will deposit Rs. 6,12,560/- excluding the cost for locational advantage. Instead of depositing the entire cost, petitioner No. 1 deposited a nominal token money of Rs. 10,001/-. Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "C.D.A.") is a creature of a statute, namely, the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act has been enacted to provide for the development of Urban and Rural areas in the State of Orissa according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. 10,001/-. Cuttack Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "C.D.A.") is a creature of a statute, namely, the Orissa Development Authorities Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Act has been enacted to provide for the development of Urban and Rural areas in the State of Orissa according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. C.D.A. has been established for carrying out the planned and inclusive development of town. No where in the four corner of the Act, the authorities of the C.D.A. have empowered/authorized to allow a premium free land for construction of church and graveyard. Merely because the Government provides a plot in Bhubaneswar, the same per se does not create any right in favour of the petitioners. 6. The next question that survives for consideration of this Court is as to whether not providing a premium free land for construction of church and a graveyard infringes the rights of the Christians under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Article 25 guarantees that every person shall have the freedom of conscience and shall have right to profess, practice and propagate religion, subject to restriction imposed by the State. Article 26 guarantees certain rights to every religion denomination subject to public order, morality or health. The same are quoted hereunder: 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.- (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion (2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law- (a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice; (b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus. Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion. Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 26. Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. 26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.- Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right- (a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes; (b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; (c) to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and (d) to administer such property in accordance with law." 7. The aforesaid Articles cannot be pressed into service for providing a premium free land for construction of a church and a graveyard for the Christians. As would be evident from Article 26, subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes, to manage its own affairs in matters of religion; to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and to administer such property in accordance with law. Establishment and maintenance of the institutions for religious and charitable purposes and own and acquire movable and immovable property does not mean that C.D.A., which is a creature of a statute, will provide a land at a free of cost. In view of the above analysis made in the preceding paragraphs and the logical sequitur is the writ petition, sans any merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.