SHAROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE Vs. NAHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three Civil Revisions are being disposed of by this common judgment because these are against the same order passed by the District Judge, Bhatinda, dated 15. 10. 1980, while exercising the powers of executing Court as per Section 12 (x) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925. All these petitions involve common questions of law and facts.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to these revision petitions can be briefly summaried as follows: The petitioner before me is the Sikh Gurdwara Dera Bhai Ram Singhwala, Kot Fatta, District Bathinda. The papers before me indicate that steps were taken before a Tribunal established under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, for an adjudication that certain property including the agricultural land involved in this litigation was the property of Sikh Gurdwara. Papers before me do not clearly indicate the nature of litigation thus initiated. However, the decree which ultimately came to be passed in suit under Section 25-A of the said Act, indicates that during that litigation before the Tribunal, there was a settlement between the two contesting parties. The contesting parties in that litigation were present petitioner/s on one hand and on the other hand, Lakhvinder Singh and Balvinder Singh who are impleaded in these revision petitions as respondents. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly, other respondents, except Lakhvinder Singh and Balvinder Singh, were not parties to the aforesaid litigation that had commenced before the Tribunal. The decree thus came to be passed in the suit was sought to be executed by filing an execution before the District Judge. It may be mentioned that as per Section 12 (x) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, the decrees or orders passed by the Tribunals under the said Act are to be executed by filing a petition before the District Judge, and the District Judge would execute it as if a decree passed by such Court. The prayer made in the execution petition was for putting the petitioners in actual physical possession of certain agricultural land as covered by the execution petition. The third persons, who are respondents respectively in these three petitions, raised an objection to the handing over of the physical possession. In nutshell, their contention was that they are tenants in possession since many years. Respondent Nahar Singh (objector) contended that he was inducted as tenant by Lakhvinder Singh and Balvinder Singh Since 1971. Respondent Jalaur Singh (objector) claimed that he was thus indicated on some piece of land since 1969. Respondent Gurjant Singh (objector) claimed that he was thus inducted by Lakhvinder Singh and Balvinder Singh since prior to 1962.

(3.) BEFORE the District Judge, the learned counsel for the present petitioners conceded that these objector/respondents appeared to be tenant on the land in question. The contention by him was that since these objectors had not raised such an objection before the tribunal under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, they are not entitled to resist the execution of a decree for possession by putting forward such claim of tenancy rights. That submission did not find favour with the District Judge in view of the ruling reported in Thakur Singh v. Managing Committee, Gurdwara Hari Mander Sahib, AIR 1930 Lahore 607. That ruling indicates that during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal under the said Act, the question would be limited to the title of the Sikh Gurdwara over the property in question, and, therefore, the rights of the tenants are not under challenge, and no question of adjudication of such rights would arise in such proceedings. That ruling further observes that the remedy would be to get relief from the concerned revenue authorities. In that view he issued a warrant of symbolic possession of these lands in respect of which these objectors/respondents had claimed the tenancy rights. Against that order dated 15. 10. 1980 these three revisions are filed.