JOGINDER SINGH Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated February 8, 1966, whereby three institutions, namely Gurdwara Deg Sahib, Gurdwara Akal Garh and Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, situate in the revenue estate of Gharuan, Tahsil Sirhind, District Patiala, were declared to be Sikh Gurdwaras and the petition of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) On a petition having been presented under Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the State Government published a Notification No. 1999-C.I., dated November 6, 1962, under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act describing the said institution as a Sikh Gurdwara. Two claims were filed under Section 8 of the Act--one by Joginder Singh and 34 other residents of the said village and the other by Amar Singh and others, which were registered as claims Nos. 272 and 273. Both these claims were filed by more than 20 Sikh worshippers of the institution stating themselves to be more than 21 years of age. The Tribunal consolidated both the claims as they related to the same institution and recorded evidence in claim No. 272 alone. Though the notification and the claims related to the said three institutions, namely, Gurdwara Deg Sahib, Gurdwara Akal Garh and Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, and the appeal was also filed respecting all the three institutions, but at the time of arguments, the learned counsel had not pressed the appeal qua the two institutions, namely, Gurdwara Deg Sahib, Gurdwara Akal Garh, and hence we are only concerned with the third institution, that is, Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib.

(3.) In their claim petition, the appellants had stated that the institution in dispute was not a Sikh Gurdwara within the meaning of Section 16 of the Act; that the petition under Section 7, Sub-section No. (1) had not been properly presented as the persons alleged to have signed or thumb marked, actually did not sign or thumb mark the petition; that the petition under Section 7 had not been presented within limitation end that the Sikh Gurdwara Act was ultra vires of the Constitution. The claim petitions were opposed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) who pleaded that the institution in dispute had been established in the memory of a Sikh Saini Bhai Jagga or in the alternative, had been established for worship by the Sikhs and was so used till now. It was, therefore, claimed that the institution in dispute may be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara by application of the provisions of either Section 16 (2) (iv) or Section 16 (2) (iii) of the Act. The Committee also raised a preliminary objection that the petition, as framed, was not maintainable which gave rise to the following preliminary issue in petition No, 272:-- Whether the petition, as such, is not maintainable ?