JALAUR SINGH Vs. SHROMANI GURDAWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this case is Jalaur Singh who filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other direction against Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, respondent No. 1 and State of Punjab, respondent No. 2 for declaring Sections 3, 5, 7, 14 to 16 and 38 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 as ultravires of the Constitution of India and in particular for quashment of the notification dated 23. 2. 1960 and 23. 1. 1961.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he is the Mohatmin of the Udassi Institution, situated in village Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur and as per jamabandi for the year 1982-83, he is Mohatmin of the Udassi Institution known as Shri Gurdwara Sahib Andruni. Respondent No. 1 i. e. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to SGPC) got a notification issued under section 3 (2) dated 23. 2. 1960 bearing No. 302 publishing a list of property claimed on behalf of said Gurdwara and called all persons having right, title to interest in the said property to file petition under section 5 (1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. No body filed any objection and thereby Punjab Government issued notification Under Section 5 (3) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act declaring that it was a Gurdwara. By a resolution passed on 12. 12. 1963, respondent No. 1 got declared the Gurdvvaras known as Padshahi Chhemi and Dasmi Andruni Qila, Bhadaur vide notification No. 1191 dated 10. 7. 1959. The petitioner had no notice nor he was afforded any opportunity of being heard before the issuance of the notification to prove that the institution of which he was Mohatimin declared as Sikh Gurdwara and that the said institution rather belongs to Udasi sadhus. It has also been averred in the petition that respondent No. 1 filed a suit Under Section 28 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 claiming possession of the property. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the plea that the institution was not a Gurdwara and as such it could not be declared as Sikh Gurdwara. . . It was also pleaded in the suit that the petitioner had no knowledge of the notification issued by the Government declaring the institution as Sikh Gurdwara. However, inspite of the defence taken by the petitioner in the said suit, the District Judge, Barnala decreed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 29. 7. 1965. The first appeal was filed in the High Court which dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed execution proceedings in order to take possession of the land pertaining to Gurdwara. Objections were filed. A reference was made to the High Court Under Section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Executing Court and reference was answered holding that District Judge was competent to proceed with the execution application for the delivery of possession. The petitioner, then filed a Civil Revision before this Court which was also dismissed.

(3.) BEFORE I incorporate the pleadings of the opposite party, it may be useful for me to incorporate the order dated 2. 11. 1988 of the Motion Bench which admitted the writ petition and ordered for the status quo regarding possession during the pendency of the writ petition :" On our asking the learned counsel for the petitioner has shown us a judgment of the Civil Court in Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Jalaur Singh and Anr. decided on July 29, 1965. A bare reading thereof shows that in that suit for possession Issue No. 3 was struck to focus" Is there no Gurdwara known as Padshahi Chhemi and Dashmi (Andruni Quilla) as specified in the plaint in question. " The trial Court held that all the evidence led by the defendant was not admissible in view of section 3 (4) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act because the publication of a declaration of consolidated list under the provisions of Sub-section 2 thereof shall be the conclusive proof that the provisions of Sub-sections 1,2 and 3 with respect to such publication have duly been complied with and the Gurdwara is a Sikh Gurdwara. So the factual position could not be established in view of the bar created Under Section 3 (4) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act. In the instant petition strength is drawn from A. I. R. 1975 S. C. 1069 to contend that before issuance of the notification the principles of audi clteram partem as the spirit of the Constitution of India had to be adhered to and since that was not done, a writ petition is maintainable. Admitted. Status quo regarding possession be maintained till further orders".