MAHANT PURAN DASS Vs. SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was heard by the Division Bench of this Court consisting of Kulwant Singh Tiwana, J. and B.S. Yadav J. Both of them delivered their separate judgments dated 27th May, 1963. Thus there was difference of opinion. K.S. Tiwana, J. dismissed the appeal, whereas B.S. Yadav, J. accepted the same and set aside the order of the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). Consequent vide order dated 27th May, 1983 it was ordered by the said Division Bench that the case be placed before the Chief Justice for refering it to a third Judge. It is how this case has come up for hearing in this Court.

(2.) The Punjab Government published the petition under section 7 (1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') forwarded to it by sixty worshipers of Gurdwara Sahib Dera Lang Siri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (institution in dispute) situated in the revenue estate of village Sardargarh, tehsil and district Bhatinda. In the petition the institution was claimed not to be a Sikh Gurdwara as defined in the Act. Mahant Puran Dass, who was the Mahant at that time, filed a petition under section 8 of the Act before the Tribunal and pleaded that the Dera in question was exclusively the Dera of the Udasi Sadhus. The original Dera was in village Chugha Kalan. When village Sardargarh was founded the land of the original Dera came in it's revenue limits. The Dera in village Sardargarh was founded by Udasi Sadhus and had been in their possession and management. It was practically a branch of the Dera at village Chugha Kalan. The Dera in dispute was not a place of worship for the Sikhs nor it had ever been a place of worship for the Sikhs. Mahant Puran Dass also claimed himself to be a hereditary office holder and averred that rule of succession to the said office had always been from Guru to Chela. This petition was contested on behalf of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (S.G.P.C.). It denied the contentions raised by the appellant in his petition. It claimed that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara and practically the whole land was in the name of Guru Granth Sahib. The contention about the custom governing succession and Mahant Puran Dass being a hereditary office holder was denied.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :-