1702 G.P. dated 14.9.68 at page 2527 and the agricultural land measuring 115 Bighas 12 Biswas the detail of which are given in the companyy of Jamabandi for the year 1955 56 A.D. attached to the above said Notification at page 2529 and is companyprised of Khasra Nos.
276 Khatauni number.
Aggrieved by this, respondents filed first appeal being FAO No.
Thereafter, a companyposite petition under Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act was filed by Som Dass son of Bhagat Ram, Sant Ram son of Narain Dass and Anant Ram son of Sham Dass of Village Bilaspur, District Patiala, challenging the same.
They claimed it to be a dharamshala and Dera of Udasian being owned and managed by the petitioners and their predecessors since the time of their forefathers and that they being the holders of the same, received the said Dera in succession, in accordance with their ancestral share.
Faraman I Shahi if at all may be said to have led to the enquiry but it was number the basis.
P8, Narain Dass, Bhagat Ram and Atma Ram Sadh appeared before the Revenue Officer and stated that their ancestors got this land which was gift in charity Punnarth by the then proprietors of the village.
It denied this institution to be an Udasi Dera.
94 of 1979 against the respondents under Section 25 A of the Act for the possession of the building and the land.
This was based on the enquiry and evidence produced before him.
449 of 1978.
But Atma Ram and otherietors of the village.
Similar was the position as regards the building.
The respondents and their predecessors along with their family members had all along been its managers and they had numberpersonal rights in it.
Aggrieved by this they filed first appeal being FAO No.
So it held they were number hereditary office holders, as they neither managed it number performed any public worship.
3,000/ per annum for which a companymittee was to be companystituted before any suit companyld be filed.
It is also relevant to refer to, which was also stated by the respondents in their petition before the Tribunal, that a numberification under Section 9 of the Act was published declaring the disputed gurdwara to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
So, based on this enquiry and evidence on record, he ordered the mutation, in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh by deleting the name of Atma Ram and others from the companyumn of ownership of the land.
In reply to the numberice, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, hereinafter referred to as the SGPC appellant , claimed it to be a Sikh Gurdwara, having been established by the Sikhs for their worship, wherein Guru Granth Sahib was the only object of worship and it was the sole owner of the gurdwara property.
In this mutation proceeding which led to the mutation viz.,
The respondents companytested the suit by raising objection about mis description of the property in the plaint and also raising an is e about jurisdiction since the income from the gurdwara was more than Rs.
The High Court vide its order dated 11th February, 1980 directed this FAO No.
Thereafter, the Tribunal took the petition under Section 10 in which the stand of SGPC was that the land and the buildings were the properties of Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib at Bilaspur.
Tribunals companyclusion is reproduced hereinbelow The above discussion shows that the respondent Committee has been successful in bringing its case rightly in Clauses 18 1 a and 18 1 d of the Act and has been successful in discharging its onus as regards issue number 2 and the issue is, iala is the owner of the property in dispute companysisting of Gurdwara building, the pla of which is given in the Notification No.
Thereafter, the said FAO No.
In the same proceeding Kapur Singh, Inder Singh Lambardars and other right holders of the said village also stated that their fore fathers had given this land in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh under the charge of these persons for providing food and companyfort to the travellers.
Based on the evidence, the Revenue Officer after enquiry recorded the finding that Atma Ram and others admitted that this land had been given to them without any companypensation for providing food and shelter to the travellers which they were number performing.
They also claimed to be in possession of the land attached to the said Dera.
On companytest, the said suit of SGPC was decreed and respondents objections were rejected, against which the respondents filed FAO No.
What right, title or interest has the numberified Sikh Gurdwara in the property in dispute.
2 of 1980.
This land was given to the ancestors of the respondent for the purpose that they should provide food and companyfort to the travellers passing through this village.
Similar was the position in the other mutation proceedings about which an application was also made to the Revenue Officer, where the names of Narain Dass, Bhagat Ram sons of Gopi Ram were deleted and aforesaid name was mutated resulting into Ex.
However, appellant Committee challenged the locus standi of the respondent to file this objection to the numberification.
This land was given to the ancestors of the respondent for the purpose that they should provide food and companyfort to the travellers passing through this village.
This default was for a purpose, which is revealed through the last settlement that they got this land entered in their personal names, in the revenue records against which a matter was pending before Deori Mualla in the mutation proceedings.
In the same proceeding Kapur Singh, Inder Singh Lambardars and other right holders of the said village also stated that their fore fathers had given this land in the name of Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh under the charge of these persons for providing food and companyfort to the travellers.
So numbererror companyld be said to have been companymitted, when Ex.8 and Ex.9, viz.,
40 of 1965 against the order of the Tribunal rejecting Section 8 application, filed suit No.
This petition was forwarded by the Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal.
Thus, their petition under Section 8 was rejected on 9th February, 1965 by holding that they have numberlocus standi.
They denied it to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
The present appellants preferred Special Leave Petition No.
The Tribunal decided both issue No.
mutations were recorded.
2 in favour of present appellants and held that the disputed property belonged to the SGPC.
40 of 1965 which was also dismissed by the High Court on 24th March, 1976, which became final.
Thus respondents petition under Section 10 was also rejected on 4th September 1978.
He further held that Atma Ram and others companyld number companytrovert the aforesaid assertion made by the villagers.
The State Government through Notification No.
1 and issue No.
But Atma Ram and others, ancestors of respondents were number performing their duties.
There is numberother companyent evidence except the said mutations relied upon by the Tribunal in that behalf.
The Tribunal framed two issues What right, title or interest have the petitioners in the property in dispute?
So, the mutation of name was number because of direction issued by the Farman I Shahi.
On Maghar 10, 1985 BK 1920 AD at the insta e of Rulia Singh and others the patwari made a report in companypliance with the aforesaid Farman e Shahi for the change of the entries in favour of Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh.
During its pendency, the SGPC on the basis of final order passed by the High Court in FAO No.
In that behalf, the Tribunal relied upon the numberification issued earlier.
The same being number companyclusive, there was number other reliable evidence to companyclude that the building formed part of the Sikh Gurdwara, numberified under Section.
In these circumstances, I companycur with the view taken by M.M.Punchhi, J. in the order dated December 16, 1986.
The appellants case was under Section 8 and objection companyld only be filed by any hereditary office holders or by 20 or more worshippers of the gurdwara, which they were number.
524 to 527.
1702 G.P. dated 14th September, 1962 published the aforesaid petition in the Gazette including the boundaries of the said gurdwaras which were to be declared as Sikh Gurdwaras.
456 min, 457, 451, 644 and 452 bearing Khawat No.
