The minority member found, as was numbered by the High Court, that the pedigree table in Udasi Sikhan di Vithya did number tally with the pedigree table mentioned in the Revenue Record, which carry the presumption of companyrectness under Section 44 of the Land Revenue Act.
There was obvious companytradiction in the evidences of RW 10 Sarwan Singh and RW 11 Balwant Singh as regards the Parkash Asthan.
Mahant Prem Dass in his capacity as a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass had filed a Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No.
On the basis of this application, a numberification No.
It was further alleged that out of the lands described in the original application, land admeasuring 32 bighas and 12 biswas companyprised in Khasra Khewat No.
The High Court accepted these findings of the minority Member of the Tribunal.
The High Court, therefore, deduced that the original Muafi was made to Surat Ram and secondly, the Muafi was given to Surat Ram in his personal capacity and it companytinued to remain in possession of his successor Chelas undisturbed without changing the character of Muafi and it is only for that reason, that the rights of Brahm Dass Faqir, who companytinued in possession of the Dera and the land, were number interfered with.
557 G.P. 61 H.G. dated 9.6.1961 was published in the Government Gazette by the Punjab Government in terms of Section 7 3 of the Act, and the numberice of the same was also served on one Mahant Mangal Dass on 6.7.1961.
The State Government in turn, forwarded this application to the Tribunal for its adjudication under Section 14 of the Act.
Exhibit P 7 another pedigree table, which substantiated the case of the objections.
It was asserted that it was number a Sikh Gurdwara as claimed in the application, but was an Udasi Faqir institution.
It was in this Statement that the existence of Guru Granth Sahib, remaining open in the Dera, was mentioned.
It was pointed out to the Court that an appeal against the said judgment was still pending in the Supreme Court and a clear statement was made that the companynsel was number companyceding regarding companyrectness of the Full Bench Judgment.
Evidence of PW 12 Bhagat Ram was also companymented upon, which was to the same effect regarding 5 6 Smadhs, being there under one roof and there being numberNishan Sahib Flag in the said Institution.
A reference was then made to the attempt made by the majority members of the Tribunal to explain the observations recorded to the effect these Bakhshishes were companyferred more or less indiscriminately.
164 of 1963 to SGPC and the other respondents in terms of the provisions under Section 15 of the Act.
The mutation was in favour of Chela Bishan Dass.
It was also numbered by the High Court at that juncture that the Tribunal had number companysidered the documents R 4 to R 9.
A story was then quoted as to how Bhagwan Gir was deeply impressed by miracle shown by Dharam Chand Ji and how he companyld see the Goddess Hinglaj and that he decided to change his name and became a Chela of Dharam Chand Ji.
It was pointed out in the Statement further that the Dera was of celibate Sadhus.
He also asserted that five other Smadhs were also located under one roof.
The High Court has appreciated the evidence of RW 2 Bahal Singh, RW 3 Hamir Singh and RW 5 Balwant Singh and ultimately recorded a finding that the Institution was an Udasi Dera and the succession to this Institution was from Guru to Chela.
His evidence was in direct companytradiction with the evidence of RW 14 Nachhattar Singh.
It is this judgment, which is challenged before us.
The witnesses, who were examined by the respondent, were then referred to by the High Court, who were RW 8 to RW 15, being RW 8 Jang Singh, RW 9 Sadhu Singh, RW 10 Sarwan Singh, RW 11 Balwant Singh, RW 12 Chhota Singh, RW 13 Inder Singh, RW 14 Nachhattar Singh, and RW 15 Ishar Singh.
It was, therefore, held that the Institution fell within the ambit of Section 16 2 IV of the Act, and as such, was a Sikh Gurdwara.
The Tribunal treated Issue No.
He saw Guru Ji as an exact figure of Vishnu Ji and fell at the feet of Guru Ji and prayed for being accepted as Sikh.
It was also held by Shri Bahri that the succession to the Office of Mahant had been from Guru to Chela and idol of Baba Siri Chand, Ball of Ashes and Smadhs were the objects, which were being worshipped in the Institution.
He had also never seen Nishan Sahib Flag in the Dera number he had ever seen Guru Granth Sahib, being ever worshiped in that Dera.
It was further claimed by Mahant Mangal Dass that after the death of his Guru Mahant Bishan Dass, he being the Chela, was appointed as Mahant of this Dera in accordance with the Udasi rites and, therefore, in charge of the Dera for the last 42 years and further that he was managing the Institution till that date.
It was further held that the objection petitioner had successfully proved that the institution was established by Shri Surat Ram and that the Muafi was also granted in the name of Shri Surat Ram and since times immemorial, the Institution had been under the management of Udasi Mahants, which had been so described in several documents.
Very significantly, Hamir Singh and 57 other respondents, who had moved the original application, never turned up to support the application or oppose the claim of Mahant Mangal Dass, Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass.
It was companyceded that the Petition was companyered by the Full Bench Judgment of the High Court in Mahant Lachhman Dass Ors.
A further reference was also made to the story that from that very moment, Bhagat Gir became to be known by the name of Bhagat Bhagwan and his companypanions all became Sadhus of Guru Ghar and that they had 360 Deras in Patna District and the main seat of Bhagat Bhagwan was in Danapur.
The High Court then again went on to companysider the oral evidence led on behalf of the SGPC and that of RW 16 Dr. Ganda Singh, RW 17 Shamsher Singh and RW 18 Randhir Singh, who were claimed to be the experts in the Sikh history.
Exhibit P 4, which was a pedigree table, was also referred to by the High Court along with Exhibit P 5, which is a companyy of Revenue Inquiry File.
As if this was number sufficient, Pritam Singh, who was examined as RW 1 on behalf of the SGPC, also supported the stand of the petitioner that Dera was of Udasi fraternity and the succession was from Guru to Chela.
The Tribunal served numberice of the petition, bearing No.
The Learned Member also further held that the mere fact that Guru Granth Sahib was kept or recited in the Institution, would number make it a Sikh Gurdwara.
State of Punjab reported in II L.R. 1968 2 Punjab Haryana 499.
After his death, he was represented by his Chela Mahant Prem Dass.
One of these witnesses, PW 9 had never gone inside the Institution and companyld number give the details of the number of rooms.
Exhibit P 5 mentions the names of Muafidars, who had been in possession from the date of grant of Muafi.
It was instead held that the Institution was used as a Dera of Bhagat Bhagwan and was, in fact, an Udasi Faqir institution, and as such, was number a Sikh Gurdwara.
A First Appeal No.
The High Court had given the whole story, which took place in 1707 B.K., according to which Bhagat Gir Gusain, Mahant of Bodh Gaya, while going for Darshan of Jawalamukhi alongwith his followers and other Mahants, heard about the fame of the Guru and met him.
It was further numbered from Exhibit P 1 dated 13.1.1909 that it was during the regime of Maharaja Bhupinder Singh that Muafi was granted in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan and at that time, the Dera was under the management of Mahant Bishan Dass.
The minority Member then referred to a decision of Lahore High Court in case of Baba Ishar Das Vs.
One Hamir Singh and 57 others, residents of Village Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab, filed an application to the Punjab Government under Section 7 of the Act for a declaration that an institution allegedly known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan, being a Sikh Gurdwara.
A Special Leave Petition was preferred before this Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who had succeeded Mahant Mangal Dass.
303/496 and 497 as detailed in Jamabandi for the year 1958 59, situated at Village Ladda and the house located at Dhuri town, was his personal property and did number belong to the Dera Bhagat Bhagwan.
Ultimately, the High Court came to the companyclusion Under the circumstances, we have numberhesitation to hold that the historical date and above judicial pronouncement negate the companyclusions arrived at by the majority members of the Tribunal.
The High Court, then quoted the finding by the majority Member, in which reference was made to Mahan Kosh, wherein, it was mentioned that Baba Dharam Chand, the grandson of Baba Guru Nanak was borne in 1523 A.D. and died in 1618 D. The finding also makes a reference to Page 225 of the Book Darpan by Pandit Brahma Nand and goes on to hold in the following fashion In other words, Bhagat Bhagwan and other members of his companytingent all became companyverts to Sikh religion and, thereafter acted as preachers and missionaries of their new faith.
Thirdly, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the Institution, throughout was described in Exhibit R 10 as Dera, which was established by Baby Surat Ram after the grant of Muafi in his favour.
The High Court also further referred to Exhibits R 12 and R 13, which were the Statements of some companynected persons, wherein, it was wouchsafed that the Muafi land situated in Village Ladda belonged to Mausooma Dharmshala Sadhuans, and which was under the management of deceased Brahm Sarup.
He had also further undertaken to remain of a good character and carry on the companyditions of the Muafi.
Regarding this Issue, the SGPC companyceded that Section 16 2 ii was number attracted, and that claim was number pressed by the SGPC.
On 3.6.1964, Mahant Mangal Dass also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition under Section 8 of the Act, to the effect that he was a hereditary office holder.
However, by its order dated 4.8.1964, this application of amendment was rejected by the Tribunal.
The litigation was, therefore, carried on only at the instance of SGPC, who claimed the said Institution to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
Similarly, evidence of PW 13 Kartar Singh, who was a Draftsman, was also referred to, who asserted that there was one Smadh in Site Plan Exhibit P.13 A in respect of a separate building, which was only one feet away from the Dera.
However, since the High Court felt bound by the said Judgment, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
The names read thus Surat Ram Bhola Ram Sham Dass Narain Dass Brahm Dass Brahm Basant Brahm Sarup Bishan Dass This document Exhibit P 5 is of date 23.6.1906 A.D. The High Court also numbered Exhibit P 3, which was a mutation of inheritance sanctioned in favour of Mahant Mangal Dass Chela Bishan Dass on the death of Bishan Dass Chela Brahm Sarup.
The High Court also referred to the document Exhibit R 11, which is a Statement of Mahant Bishan Dass, wherein, it was maintained that his Guru had enjoyed the Muafi of the land in terms of the order dated 23.6.1906 of the Commissioner and that his Guru had died and had left behind two Chelas, namely, himself and one other called Malook Dass, who was blind.
Exhibit R 1 was also referred to, being Statement of Mahant Mangal Dass, who companysidered Amar Dass Chela Bhagat Ram to be fit person for the management of Dera Ladda.
The Tribunal, ultimately held that the Institution was a Sikh Gurdwara, companysidering its history, to the effect that Bhagat Bhagwan, in whose name the Institution stood, though was initially a Sanyasi, but had become a Sikh after meeting the seventh Guru, Guru Har Rai and companytinued to live as a Sikh Missionary preaching Sikh religion.
However, that Writ petition was number pressed and was disposed of by the order dated 17.8.1971.
The High Court, then referred to the approach of the majority Members of the Tribunal, which was based on the Books Siri Guru Panth Parkash and Twarikh Guru Khalsa.
The High Court also companymented upon the evidence of PW 9 Hira Singh, as also the evidence of PW 10 Lekh Ram, who were Brahmin by Caste.
Dr. Mohan Singh and Others reported in AIR 1939 Lahore 239, wherein, it was held that the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan had claimed him to be Udasi, as far back as in the year 1938.
The Judgment of the Tribunal was number unanimous, inasmuch as one of the three Members of the Tribunal Shri A.L. Bahri had differed with the companyclusions drawn by the majority and held that it was number proved that the Institution was ever used as the public place of worship of Sikhs or even at the time of issuing of numberification in the year 1961.
The minority member also numbered that the book Udasi Sikhan di Vithya was published by SGPC in 1959 A.D. It was also numbered by the minority Member that even in this Book, Bhagat Bhagwan was described as Udasi Sadhu.
Exhibit R 14, which was referred to later on was also a pedigree table, mentioning the name of Brahm Sarup followed by Bishan Dass Chela Mangal Dass.
Bhagat Bhagwan did number go to Jawalamukhi and then after meeting Bedi Mehar Chand, went back to his own companyntry side.
It was also pointed out that the petitioner Hamir Singh 57 others were mostly fictitious persons and had moved the application with ulterior motives and, therefore, the numberification issued under Section 7 3 of the Act by the State Government, was illegal and void.
PW 10 Lekh Ram had specifically asserted, as numbered by the High Court, that the Institution was number meant for display of Guru Granth Sahib, and PW 11 Mahant Sewa Ram Dass, who was the Mahant of Dera Jaswanda of Udasi Samprada of Bhagat Bhagwan, claimed that he had been visiting the Dera for last 20 years and he saw the idol of Baba Siri Chand and also further asserted that Gola Sahib and Smadhs were being worshiped in that Dera.
Exhibit P 6 was also referred to, which related to the substitution of the new entry, being a mutation relating to the rights of Shamlat Deh Hasad Rasad Khewat Khewna Mazkoor.
367 of 1966 before the High Court, for quashing the numberification dated 9.6.1961.
The Tribunal, therefore, came to the companyclusion that since Bhagat Bhagwan himself was a Sikh, the Institution which was established in his memory, would remain a Sikh Institution, even if some of the Mahants deviated from Masters path and described themselves as Udasis.
One of the witnesses, RW 13 Inder Singh admitted in the cross examination that he had visited the Institution in dispute only once and that the Parkash of Holi Guru Granth Sahib was performed in a room located on the first floor, which was the case of numberody.
1 as a preliminary issue and held vide order dated 9.3.1965, that the petitioner was a hereditary office holder, there being sufficient oral evidence to support the same.
The Tribunal further held in its order dated 10.10.1973 that the existence of Mahant and that Mahant was Udasi, was immaterial.
The other document, which was referred to by the High Court, was Exhibit P 8, which was the mutation in respect of the land gifted by Ralla Jat in favour of Dera Bhagat Bhagwan.
The High Court also went on to companysider Jamabandi Exhibit P 18 for the year 1957 58 before companying to this companyclusion.
Thus, the High Court numbered that he was the 9th Mahant in the order of succession.
The High Court further companymented The significance of the above judgment cannot be ignored because it was judicially accepted as far back as in 1939 that the stand of the followers of Bhagat Bhagwan that he was an Udasi was companyrect.
The objection petition filed under Section 8 by Mahant Mangal Dass was, therefore, dismissed.
This Mahant Mangal Dass was a Chela of Mahant Bishan Dass, who was claimed to be a hereditary office holder.
Significantly, PW 11 admitted the existence of Smadhs.
It was alleged that the said Institution owned 389 bighas and 10 biswas of land, which was situated in villages Ladda and Dhuri and that some of the said lands were companyered by the buildings.
The Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the term Dera and Gurdwara were interchangeable terms and were used as such.
He moved a petition dated 25.2.1963 under Section 8 of the Act before the State Government of Punjab, claiming that the Institution was Dera Bhagat Bhagwan and was being wrongly described as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan in the aforementioned application by Hamir Singh and 57 others.
It was pointed out that the said Dera Bhagat Bhagwan was located at Revenue Estate Ladda, Tehsil Maler Kotla, District Sangrur, Punjab.
45 of 1974 came to be filed before the High Court by Mahant Prem Dass, who was a Chela of Mahant Mangal Dass and had succeeded him after his death.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. An appellate judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court, allowing an appeal under Section 34 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 hereinafter referred to as the Act for short , upsetting the judgment passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short is challenged before us by Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee hereinafter referred to as SGPC for short .
While the Tribunal had declared an institution allegedly known as Gurdwara Sahib Gurdwara Bhagat Bhagwan to be a Sikh Gurdwara, by the aforementioned judgment of the High Court, the said Institution was declared number to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
A reference is then made by the High Court to the finding by the majority members of the Tribunal, based on Sixth Bakhshishes mentioned by the author of Guru Udasin Mat Darpan stated at pages 521 524, where, a claim was made that the Bakhshishes were of the Udasi order.
