BALBIR DASS Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The following question for determination has been referred to the full Bench

(2.) The reference was made 'by the Division Bench consisting of myself and Prem Chand Jain, J., during the course of the hearing of an appeal under Section 16 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appeal is on behalf of Balbir Dass and is directed against the order dated March 30, 1986, Passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal whereby Gurdwara Sahib Dera Dewanian situated at Handisya in district Sangrur was declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. Balbir Dass having died, his son and chela Sukhminder Dass continued with the appeal as a legal representative of the original appellant. An application was forwarded by fifty-six Sikh worshippers of the Gurdwara to the State Government and then a notification dated July 28, 1961, under S. 7(3) of the Act was published in the Punjab Government Gazette. Balbir Dass presented a petition dated October 16, 1961 to the Home Secretary under Section 8 of the Act and the same was then forwarded to the Tribunal for its disposal. Balbir Dass, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, asserted that no Gurdwara was in existence. He himself was said to be in possession of the Property of the Dera. He made this grievance that the notification under Section 7 of the Act had been got issued by some Sikh per sons who wanted to convert the Dera into a Gurdwara. It was further contended by him that he was the mohtmim of the property attached to the Dera In answer to the notices issued by the Tribunal neither those fifty-six worshippers who had made a move for the declaration of the Gurdwara as a Sikh Gurdware nor any of the one hundred end seventyfour objectors who had joined the appellant in raising the objections made their appearance before the Tribunal.. The petition of the appellant was only opposed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee which was impleaded as a respondent by the order of the Tribunal dated January 29, 1963. It raised this preliminary objection that the appellant had not claimed himself to be a hereditary office-holder so as to entitle him to file a petition under S. 8 of the Act. The appellant then presented an application for amendment which was allowed by the Tribunal. The appellant then introduced the following amendment at the end of the previous paragraph 1 of the petition:--

(3.) At first the following preliminary issue was tried by the Tribunal:--