FAO No.1046 of 2006 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1046 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 16.07.2010 **** Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Teja Singh Samundri Vill. Amritsar through S. Gian Singh Mukhtiar-i-am . . . . Appellant VS. S. Jagir Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.M.S. Dhami, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S. Virk, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against the order of Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar (for short ‘the Commission’) dated 11.7.2005 by which an application filed under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (for short ‘the Act’) by the Siromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (for short ‘SGPC’) against respondents No.1 to 5 has been dismissed against respondents No.2 to 5 but for respondent No.1, who has been found to be negligent in performing his duties as the President of the Managing Committee of the Gurdwara Mastgarh Sahib, Shahabad Markanda (for short ‘Gurdwara’) because respondent No.1 had FAO No.1046 of 2006 (O&M) - 2 - not taken any permission from SGPC before exchanging the land of Gurdwara with the land of Arya Samaj Gurukul Section, Arya Girl Primary School, Shahabad (for short ‘the School’). In brief, the Gurdwara exchanged 7904 square feet land situated at Anand Gali with the land measuring 7904 square feet of the School. In so far as exchange is concerned, the Commission has held that exchange has been effected at the instance of the President of the Gurdwara without seeking permission of the SGPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that in the process of exchange a loss of Rs.3,70,957 has been caused to the Gurdwara as more valuable land has been given in exchange for the land of the lesser value. However, the Commission has found that there is no evidence on record except a report of R.K. Goyal, Architect (Mark ‘16’) on the basis of which SGPC has claimed that the land of Gurdwara was more valuable than the land of the School, however, report (Mark ‘16’) has not been proved by examining its author Rakesh Kumar as a witness. Except for the said report, there is no other evidence available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has also admitted before this Court that the land of Gurdwara was lying outside Shahabad town whereas the land of the School was situated within the town of Shahabad. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Commission has found the act of malfeasance and misfeasance on the part of the respondents. However, Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the act of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance or abuse of the power is attributed to respondent No.1 alone and not respondents No.2 to 5, who have been absolved by the Commission. FAO No.1046 of 2006 (O&M) - 3 - After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as the Court has to decide the case on the basis of evidence available on record and in the present case except for the report (Mark ‘16’) which has not been proved to prove the value of the land of the Gurdwara, which is allegedly more valuable than the land which has been got exchanged with the School. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that the land, which has been taken by the Gurdwara is in the town of Shahabd and land given in exchange is out of the town of Shahabad, Markanda. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 16.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek