"State Should Approach All Religions Alike": Madras High Court Calls For Protecting Church Properties U/S 22A Registration Act

Justice GR Swaminathan noted that while temple properties are protected under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act and the Wakf properties are covered under the Wakf Act 1995, a similar law with respect to church properties was absent. The court noted that in India, being a secular country, the state was expected to treat all religions alike and thus suggested bringing church properties under the ambit of Section 22A of the Registration Act.

“The belief is that misappropriating temple property will destroy the family of the person committing the act. When the Registration Act contains a provision to protect the properties endowed under Hindu and Islamic Laws, it is surprising that the church properties are not covered. The logical reason that one can give is that in the case of Hindu religious endowments and Wakf properties, there are specific legislations, in the case of church properties, a similar law appears to be absent. India is a secular country. It means that the State should approach all the religions alike. Probably the time has come to include the church properties also within the scope of Section 22-A of the Act,” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea against the order of the Sub Registrar refusing to register the properties of one Shalin. The registering authority informed the court that registration was refused in light of an interim order of the Madras High Court saying that the properties endowed in favor of Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (TELC) should not be registered without the permission from High Court.

It was also informed that the IG of Registration had issued a circular following the interim order of the High Court asking authorities not to register the properties.

The court, however, noted that the writ petition in which the interim direction was made was closed and thus the interim order did not have a life beyond the termination of the writ petition. The court also noted that the circular was not a statutory direction but a mere communication by the District Registrar (Guideline) informing all the Sub Registrars, District Registrars, and Deputy Inspector Generals of Registration about the order of the High Court. Thus, the court noted that at present there was no order restraining the registration of TELC properties.

Though the court admitted that the church properties were not protected under the Registration Act, the court did not find any justification in the order declining to register the document. The court noted that the sale deed and the settlement deed were duly registered and the revenue records were also mutated.

Thus, the court thought it fit to set aside the order of the registering authority and directed the petitioner to re-present the document for registration.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.A.Amala

Counsel for Respondent: Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia, Special Government Pleader

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 213

Case Title: Shalin v The District Registrar and Another

Case No: W.P(MD)No.8319 of 2023