LAWS(P&H)-2017-3-218

BABA JIT SINGH ALIAS JEET SINGH CHELA BABA AMAR SINGH (DECEASED THROUGH LRS) Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, FARIDKOT DIVISION, FARIDKOT AND OTHERS

Decided On March 23, 2017
Baba Jit Singh Alias Jeet Singh Chela Baba Amar Singh (Deceased Through Lrs) Appellant
V/S
The Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 5918 of 2014 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and Shrimoni Gurdwara Parbanchak Committee is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 5. Amended memo of parties is taken on record and registry is directed to put it at the appropriate place. C.W.P. No. 23300 of 2013 The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure P-5) and 20.07.2010 (Annexure P-3) came to be passed in pursuance of the proceedings having taken place under the provisions of Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1997 (hereinafter called as the "Act of 1997) ordering ejectment from the land measuring 60 kanals 12 marlas.

(2.) Mr. J.S. Brar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No. 3-Gurdwara Bauli Sahib Sher Singh Wala, instituted a petition for seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the aforementioned land on the premise that the aforementioned Gurdwara is a notified Sikh Gurdwara under the provisions of section 10 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter called as the "Act of 1925"). However, the petitioner having put in appearance, filed a reply challenging maintainability of the aforementioned petition on the premise that the Gurdwara was declared as Sikh Gurdwara under Section 16 of the Act of 1925. However, the matter was taken into consideration and respondent No. 2, vide impugned order dated 20.07.2010, allowed the petition and appeal filed against the same was also dismissed, hence this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 2 (d) and (e) of the Act of 1997, which reads as under, to contend that respondent No. 3 does fall in any of the categories mentioned below and therefore, the petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone:-