IMPORTANT POINT
Where the succession was from guru to chela and those gurus were followers of Udasi faith and institution was known as Dena of Udasi Bhekh, one can vivualise reading of granth sahib though they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion, it will not become a Sikh Gurdwara under Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

Headnote:(i) Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925-Sections 8 and 10-Petition to have it declared that a place asserted to be a Sikh Gurdwara is not such a gurdwara under Section 8 and petition under Section 10 of claim to property including in a list published under Section 7(3)-Difference between the two petitions-Tribunal treating the petitions as a composite one under Sections 8 and 10 whereas High Court treating them under Section 10-Whether High Court was right? (Yes).
       Held : Basic issue according to us is whether the High Court had rightly decided the questions raised before it in the background of Section 10. Copy of the petition which was extracted by the High Court clearly shows that it was under Section 10. The petition was reproduced in extenso. Bare reading thereof shows that that it was in terms of Section 10. Sections 8 and 10 operate in different fields. While Section 8 deals with the nature and character of the institution. Section 10 deals with adjudication of right, title and interest of the applicant. Section 9 only makes Part III of the Act applicable where a notification is issued. Said Part deals with management and administration of the property. Section 9 nowhere bars an application in terms of Section 10. Since they operate in different fields, it cannot be said that an application under Section 10 was excluded when notification under Section 9 was issued by the Government. (Para 14)
       Though it was pleaded that there is no material to show that the Sant Sarna Ram belong to Udasi order. The same is clearly untenable in view of the evidence, more particularly, that of PW 10, who has stated that Sarna Ram is the Chela of Chet Ram. The property which Sama Ram claimed devolved upon him from his Guru Chet Ram, and they were Udasi Sadhus. In the Jamabandi records the kaum of Chet Ram and Sant Ram was recorded to be, as noted above, "Sadh Bairagi". High Court was not in error in holding that the Sant Rani belonged to Udasi order. (Para 15)
       (ii) Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925-Section 16-Difference between Sikh Temple and those of other religions-The descent of the property from to a guru of Udasi sect to his chela-High Court holding that it does not warrant that it does not warrant that it is religious property of sikh gurdwara-Whether correct? (Yes)-Result-Appeals dismissed-Case law referred.
       Held (relying on AIR 1938 PC 195) : The descent of the property from a guru to his chela does not warrant the presumption that it is religious property. (Para 16)
       Held (relying on AIR 1984 SC 858) : The sine qua non for an institution, to be treated as Sikh Gurdwara as observed in the said case, is that there should be established Guru Granth Sahib, and the worship of the same by congregation, and a Nishan Sahib. There may be other rooms of the institution made for other purposes but the crucial test is the existence of Guru Granth Sahib and the worshippers thereof by the congregation and Nishan Sahib. (Para 19)
       Held further : Unless the claim falls within one or the other of the categories enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 16, the institution cannot be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. (Para 20)
       Held (relying on AIR 1984 SC 1059) : In Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee Amritsar v. Maliant Kirpa Ram and Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 1059), it was observed that Udasis form an independent sect. They do venerate Sikh scriptures. Therefore, in an institution of Udasis sect one can visualize reading of Granth Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures. That itself is not decisive of the character of the institution. On the contrary, where the succession was from Guru to Chela and those Gurus were followers of Udasis faith and the institution was known as Dera of Udasi Bhekh and they followed some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion, such things were completely destructive of the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdwara. (Para 21)
       Held finally : Above being the factual position and the legal principles applicable thereto, the appeals deserve dismissal, which we direct. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These five appeals by special leave arise from a common judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The five appeals before it were directed against the order dated 1.8.1978 passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal Punjab, Chandigarh (in short the Tribunal ) in Petition nos.663 and 654 of 1975.

2. Synoptical resume of the tactual position is as follows:

One Bakhtawar Singh and fifty nine other worshippers of an institution alleged to be Gurdwara Sahib Ji situated in the revenue estate of Kot Fatta, Tehsil and District Bhatinda filed a petition under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (in short the Act ) to the appropriate Secretary, Government of Punjab, praying, inter alia, that the said institution be declared as Sikh Gurdwara and properties mentioned in the petition be declared as belonging to the Gurdwara. The appropriate Secretary to the Government of Punjab, in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Act published the petition along with rights, titles and interests showing rights, titles and interests belonging to the Gurdwara in question vide notification in the Punjab Government Gazette dated 4.11.1974 One Mahant Sama Ram, an Udasi, filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act claiming that there was no Sikh Gurdwara in existence, the alleged institution was his residential house, and agricultural land alleged to be belonging to the Gurdwara was his property. One Ramji Dass and others also filed identical petition stating that the alleged Gurdwara building was residential house of Sama Ram Chela Chet Ram and the agricultural land belonged to him and they have purchased about 60 Kanals of land from him. Both these petitions were forwarded by the appropriate Secretary to the Government of Punjab to the Tribunal under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Tribunal treated the petition to be a composite one under Sections 8 and 10 of the Act By its order dated 22.7.1975 Tribunal held that since Sarna Ram had not claimed that he was a hereditary office holder of the institution in dispute, he had no locus standi to file the petition under Section 8. Ramji Dass and others neither claimed any personal interest in the Gurdwara building nor did they claim to be worshippers or hereditary office-holders of the institution and their petition was similarly not maintainable. However, the Tribunal proceeded to deal with the petition under Section 10. It is to be noted that the Tribunal registered the petitions as No. 663/1975 (Bagga Singh and another v. S.G.P.C. Amritsar) filed by Sama Ram and No.654/1975 (Ramji Dass and others v. S.G.P.C. Amritsar) filed by Ramji Das and others. The petitions under Section 10 of the Act were registered giving identical numbers. Vide its order dated 31.7 1978 the Tribunal held that the building in question was a Gurdwara and the land attached to it belonged to the Gurdwara in question.

3. Challenging the correctness of said order, the successors-in-interest of late Mahant Sarna Ram filed First Appeal No. 434 of 1978 and the alienees from late Mahant Sarna Rain assailed the order in First Appeal no. 435 of 1978. As a consequence of the order dated 31.7.1978 passed by the Tribunal. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Committee ) filed two suits under Section 25-A of the Act. One was against Bagga Singh and Darshan Singh, legal representatives of late Mahant Sarna Ram and the other against Ramji Dass and others who were alienees from aforesaid late Mahant Sarna Ram and these were registered as suits No. 89 and 90 of 1979 respectively. Both these suits were decreed by the Tribunal by order dated 18.1,2.1979 and decrees were passed in favour of the Committee. Aforesaid decrees were challenged in First Appeal nos. 34 of 1980, 198 of 1980 and 144 of 1980.

4. Tribunal, inter alia, came to the conclusion on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that the institution i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1178

Cases Referred (2)