MAHANT SUKHWINDER SINGH, CHELA MAHANT SUKHPAL SINGH, CHELA MAHANT CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal filed by a person who was not even party before the trial court seeks to revive a matter which had been settled by the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1975 passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh (in short "the Tribunal") whereby the petition under Sec. 10 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") filed by Lakhinder Singh and Balwinder Singh (respondents No. 3 and 4), Chelas and legal representatives of deceased Mahant Chand Singh, was disposed of on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein may be noticed. Dera Baba Bhai Ram Singh was situated at village Kot Fatta, District Bathinda and being a religious place, the working was supervised by Mahants from long time. Earlier, in 1970, Mahant Chand Singh was the supervisor of the Dera and due to his untimely death, Mahant Sukhpal Singh was appointed as his legal representative and next on the seat of the supervisor. In the year 1973, respondents No.3 and 4 claiming to be the legal representatives of Mahant Chand Singh filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the said petition, respondents No.3 and 4 entered into a compromise with respondent No.2. As per the said compromise, the Dera was declared as notified Sikh Gurudwara and the title of the land measuring 799 kanals 7 marlas belonging to said Gurudwara was decided in favour of respondent No.2 and respondents No.3 and 4 were given 118 and 120 kanals of land out of the said land during their lifetime for their survival. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a civil suit under Sec. 25A of the Act before the District Judge, Bathinda against respondents No.3 and 4 for getting the decree for possession of the said land which was decided in favour of respondent No.2 and symbolic possession thereof was given to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 did not made any application for incorporating the decision dated 19.9.1975 passed by the Tribunal in the revenue record and it was only in the year 2011, respondent No.2 moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda for incorporating their ownership in the revenue record. The Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda vide order dated 19.7.2011 directed the Tehsildar for incorporation of the ownership of respondent No.2 in the revenue record. Hence, the present appeal. Since the appeal is barred by time, an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "1963 Act") for condonation of 13412 days' delay has been filed.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.