Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak ... vs Mahant Prem Dass

2. One Hamir Singh and 57 others, residents of Village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab, filed an application to the Punjab Government under Section 7 of the Act for a declaration that an institution allegedly known as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan", being a Sikh Gurdwara. It was alleged that the said Institution owned 389 bighas and 10 biswas of land, which was situated in villages Ladda and Dhuri and that some of the said lands were covered by the buildings. On the basis of this application, a notification No. 557-G.P.-61-H.G. dated 9.6.1961 was published in the Government Gazette by the Punjab Government in terms of Section 7(3) of the Act, and the notice of the same was also served on one Mahant Mangal Dass on 6.7.1961. This Mahant Mangal Dass was a Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass, who was claimed to be a hereditary office- holder. He moved a petition dated 25.2.1963 under Section 8 of the Act before the State Government of Punjab, claiming that the Institution was "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" and was being wrongly described as "Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan" in the aforementioned application by Hamir Singh and 57 others. It was pointed out that the said "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan" was located at Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab. It was asserted that it was not a Sikh Gurdwara as claimed in the application, but was an "Udasi Faqir institution". It was further claimed by Mahant Mangal Dass that after the death of his Guru 3 Mahant Bishan Dass, he being the Chela, was appointed as Mahant of this Dera in accordance with the Udasi rites and, therefore, in charge of the Dera for the last 42 years and further that he was managing the Institution till that date. It was further alleged that out of the lands described in the original application, land admeasuring 32 bighas and 12 biswas comprised in Khasra Khewat No. 303/496 and 497 as detailed in Jamabandi for the year 1958-59, situated at Village Ladda and the house located at Dhuri town, was his personal property and did not belong to the "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan". It was also pointed out that the petitioner Hamir Singh & 57 others were mostly fictitious persons and had moved the application with ulterior motives and, therefore, the notification issued under Section 7(3) of the Act by the State Government, was illegal and void. The State Government in turn, forwarded this application to the Tribunal for its adjudication under Section 14 of the Act.

3. The Tribunal served notice of the petition, bearing No. 164 of 1963 to SGPC and the other respondents in terms of the provisions under Section 15 of the Act. Very significantly, Hamir Singh and 57 other respondents, who had moved the original application, never turned up to support the application or oppose the claim of Mahant Mangal Dass, Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass. The litigation was, therefore, carried on only at the instance of SGPC, who claimed the said Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara. A written statement dated 29.7.1963 was filed by the SGPC and it was claimed that the said Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, as it was established for the use of Sikhs, and was used as a place of public worship by Sikhs all along in 4 terms of the provisions of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. It was additionally claimed by way of amendment that the Institution was established in the memory of Sikh Guru Bhagat Bhagwan. It was further claimed by way of subsequent amendment that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara because of the traditional visits of the first and sixth Gurus to the Institution, so that the Institution came within the purview of Section 16(2)(ii) of the Act. The last amendment was dated 1.6.1964. On 3.6.1964, Mahant Mangal Dass also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition under Section 8 of the Act, to the effect that he was a hereditary office-holder. However, by its order dated 4.8.1964, this application of amendment was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal struck two Issues:

4. Mahant Prem Dass in his capacity as a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass had filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 367 of 1966 before the High Court, for quashing the notification dated 9.6.1961. However, that Writ petition was not pressed and was disposed of by the order dated 17.8.1971. It was conceded that the Petition was covered by the Full 5 Bench Judgment of the High Court in Mahant Lachhman Dass & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab reported in II L.R. 1968 (2) Punjab & Haryana 499. It was pointed out to the Court that an appeal against the said judgment was still pending in the Supreme Court and a clear statement was made that the counsel was not conceding regarding correctness of the Full Bench Judgment. However, since the High Court felt bound by the said Judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

7. A First Appeal No. 45 of 1974 came to be filed before the High Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who was a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass and had succeeded him after his death. The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the Appeal and held that Mahant Mangal Dass had never claimed 7 to be "hereditary office-holder" nor was there any averment regarding his being a "hereditary office-holder", and since the respondent Mahant Mangal Dass has failed to prove himself as "hereditary office-holder" and had also failed to state about the custom of inheritance, the petition under Section 8 itself, was not competent. It must be stated here that the High Court did not go into the merits of the matter.

20. The High Court then went on to discuss, firstly, the documentary evidence regarding Muafi and the proceedings in respect of Muafi contended in Revenue Office Volume-VII of the year 1932 B.K. (1875 A.D.), wherein, Surat Ram was shown as a grantee, while Maharaja Sahbi Ala Singh is recorded as grantor. The total land donated to the Institution mentioned is 464 Bighas 16 Biswas and that the 44 Bighas and 15 Biswas of land, which was found in excess of the original grant, was recommended 20 to be forfeited while the rest of the land measuring 420 Bighas 16 Biswas was suggested to be continued with "Dera" in question for its upkeep. The order passed by Dewan in this behalf was also referred to, along with the order of Wazir Sahib and the order of Hazoor Anwar. The other documents referred to were the Jamabandi (Exhibit P-2) for the year 1962- 63 B.K. (1905-06 A.D.) of Village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, wherein, under the Column of ownership, it was noted "Dera Bhagat Bhagwan Ba-Ihtmam (under the management of) Brahm Sarup Chela Brahm Basant Sadh Udasian". Exhibit P-4, which was a pedigree- table, was also referred to by the High Court along with Exhibit P-5, which is a copy of Revenue Inquiry File. Exhibit P-5 mentions the names of Muafidars, who had been in possession from the date of grant of Muafi. The names read thus:-

10. The Learned Senior Counsel further argued that Mahant Mangal Dass had not only filed the Objection Petition under Section 8, but had also filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the notification and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court by a speaking order and after notice to the parties. The Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, argued that if the Writ Petition was dismissed after notice to the parties by a speaking order, hence the order dated 17.8.1971 passed by the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition operate as Res-Judicata and, therefore, the matter could not have been allowed to proceed further.

This would water down the requirement of the strict pleadings and the question of a specific plea regarding the petitioner being a hereditary office holder, would also to be pushed to the background. 47

44. In our opinion, Shri Palli is undoubtedly correct in his criticism. We have also gone through the details of the evidences, though it was not our task to re-appreciate the evidence. As we have already held, we are fully satisfied with the findings recorded by the High Court. To conclude the matter, we hold:-

45. We are, therefore, convinced that the appeal filed has no merits and must be dismissed with costs. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.

February 24, 2009.