AKHARA DHARAM DHAJAN SADHAN Vs. KEHAR SINGH, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 24th May, 1971 of a Single Bench whereby the impugned orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala, the Collector Patiala and the Financial Commissioner dated 21st December, 1964, 29th March, 1966 and 16th February, 1967, respectively were quashed.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that, Kehar Singh Respondent No. 1 is a tenant of Akhara Dharam Dhaja Sadhan, Nirmal Kot -Appellant (hereinafter called the 'Akhara') on land measuring 253 Kanals and 2 marlas. Kehar Singh filed an application under Section 22 of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (hereinafter called the Act) for acquisition of proprietary rights in the land comprised in his tenancy, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the prescribed authority, Patiala, on 8th May, 1964. The Appellant Akhara admitted before the prescribed authority the tenancy of Kehar Singh during the period required by law and also the fact that the land attached to the Akhara was over and above the prescribed area under the Act. However, the Akhara opposed the application of Kehar Singh on the ground that the land was exempt from the applicability of the provisions of the Act. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Patiala vide his order dated 21st December, 1964 held that the Akhara is a religious place of public nature and its land is exempt under Clause (iii) of the explanation to Section 51(1) of the Act. Kehar Singh filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, Patiala, which was dismissed on 29th March, 1966. He then filed a revision petition against the order of the Collector before the Financial Commissioner who dismissed the same vide his order dated 16th February, 1967. Kehar Singh then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash these orders of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the Collector, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whose copies are Exhibits 'C', 'B' and 'A' respectively to the writ petition. The Akhara filed a written statement in the shape of an affidavit through Mahant Zora Singh, who controverted the material allegations made in the petition. It was averred that Akahra is a religious institution and the impugned orders were perfectly legal and valid and the writ petition may be dismissed. The learned Single Judge held that the Akhara is not a religious institution, that it is a charitable institution of a public nature within the meaning of Clause (iii) of the explanation to Section 51(1) of the Act, and therefore, the land owned by the Akhara is not exempt from the provisions of the Act. As a result, the writ petition was allowed and the three impugned orders were quashed with no order as to costs. Feeling aggrieved, the Akhara has filed this letters patent appeal to set aside the order of the Single Judge.

(3.) THE counsel for Kehar Singh, Respondent No. 1, had contended before the learned Single Judge that the Appellant Akhara was not a religious institution. The learned Single Judge held that the finding of the prescribed authority that the Akhara was a religious institution was given on conjectures without any evidence and such a finding is liable to be set aside by the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. If the Akhara is held to be a religious institution of a public nature, then obviously the provisions of the Act would apply and the land owned by the Appellant -Akhara would be exempt from the operation of the Act.