SHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR Vs. SOMNATH DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this appeal is of far reaching consequences and is of great significance to one of the major religious followers of this country. The question is whether "the Guru Granth Sahib" could be treated as a juristic person or not If it is, then it can hold and use the gifted properties given to it by its followers out of their love, in charity. This is by creation of an endowment like others for public goods, for enhancing the religious fervour, including feeding the poor etc.. Sikhism grew because of the vibrating divinity of Guru Nanakji and the 10 succeeding gurus, and the wealth of all their teachings is contained in 'Guru Granth Sahib.' The last of the living guru was Guru Gobind Singhji who recorded the sanctity of "Guru Granth Sahib" and gave it the recognition of a living Guru. Thereafter, it remained not only a sacred book but is reckoned as a living guru. The deep faith of every earnest follower, when his pure conscience meets the divine under-current emanating from their Guru, produces a feeling of sacrifice and surrender and impels him to part with or gift out his wealth to any charity may be for gurdwaras, dharamshalas etc... Such parting spiritulises such follower for his spiritual upliftment, peace, tranquillity and enlightens him with resultant love and universalism. Such donors in the past, raised number of Gurdwaras. They gave their wealth in trust for its management to the trustees to subserve their desire. They expected trustees to faithfully implement the objectives for which the wealth was entrusted. When selfishness invades any trustee, the core of trust starts leaking out. To stop such leakage, legislature and Courts step in. This is what was happening in the absence of any organised management of Gurudwaras when trustees were either mismanaging or attempting to usurp such trusts. The Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act 1922 (VI of 1922) was enacted to meet the situation. It seems, even this failed to satisfy the aspirations of the Sikhs. The main reason being that it did not establish any permanent committee of management for Sikh gurdwaras and did not provide for the speedy confirmation by judicial sanction of changes already introduced by the reforming party in the management of places of worship. This was replaced by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1925) under which the present case arises. This Act provided a legal procedure through which Gurudwaras and shrines regarded by Sikhs as essential places of Sikh worship to be effectively and permanently brought under Sikh control and management, so as to make it consistent with the religious followings of this community.

(2.) About 56 persons of villages Bilaspur, Ghodani, Dhamot, Lapran and Buani situated in the Village Bilaspur, District Patiala moved petition under Section 7(1) of the said Act for declaration that the disputed property is a Sikh Gurdwara. The State Government through Notification No. 1702- G.P. dated 14th September, 1962 published the aforesaid petition in the Gazette including the boundaries of the said gurdwaras which were to be declared as Sikh Gurdwaras. Thereafter, a composite petition under Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act was filed by Som Dass son of Bhagat Ram, Sant Ram son of Narain Dass and Anant Ram son of Sham Dass of Village Bilaspur, District Patiala, challenging the same. They claimed it to be a dharamshala and Dera of Udasian being owned and managed by the petitioners and their predecessors since the time of their forefathers and that they being the holders of the same, received the said Dera in succession, in accordance with their ancestral share. They also claimed to be in possession of the land attached to the said Dera. They denied it to be a Sikh Gurdwara. This petition was forwarded by the Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal". In reply to the notice, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, hereinafter referred to as "the SGPC" (appellant), claimed it to be a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs for their worship, wherein "Guru Granth Sahib" was the only object of worship and it was the sole owner of the gurdwara property. It denied this institution to be an Udasi Dera. However, appellant Committee challenged the locus standi of the respondent to file this objection to the notification. The appellant's case was under Section 8 and objection could only be filed by any hereditary office-holders or by 20 or more worshippers of the gurdwara, which they were not. The Tribunal held that the petitioners before it (respondents here), admitted in their cross-examination that the disputed premises was being used by them as their residential house that there was no object of worship in the premises, neither they were performing any public worship nor they were managing it. So it held they were not hereditary office holders, as they neither managed it nor performed any public worship. Thus, their petition under Section 8 was rejected on 9th February, 1965 by holding that they have no locus standi. Aggrieved by this they filed first appeal being F.A.O. No. 40 of 1965 which was also dismissed by the High Court on 24th March, 1976, which became final. Thereafter, the Tribunal took the petition under Section 10 in which the stand of SGPC was that the land and the buildings were the properties of 'Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib' at Bilaspur. The respondents and their predecessors along with their family members had all along been its managers and they had no personal rights in it. The Tribunal framed two issues:

(3.) The Tribunal decided both issue No. 1 and issue No. 2 in favour of present appellants and held that the disputed property belonged to the SGPC. Thus respondents' petition under Section 10 was also rejected on 4th September 1978. Tribunal's conclusion is reproduced hereinbelow: