JUDGMENT :

P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J. (for himself and on behalf of Ray, C. J. and Goswami, J.) - Civil Appeals Nos. 354 and 1251 of 1969 are by certificate against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 514 of 1966 and 1935 of 1962 respectively in which by majority the provisions of Section 3 read with Schedule I and Sections Section 7 and 8 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, which were challenged were held to be valid. Following the Full Bench judgment in the above two Civil Writ Petitions, Civil Writ Petition No. 2314 of 1965 was also disposed of by a Division Bench of that High Court. Against that Judgment Civil Appeal No. 1222 of 1969 is by certificate.

2. In all these appeals the places of worship to which the impugned provisions have been made applicable were situated in the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union. After the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 when the said territories were merged, the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter called 'the Act') was made applicable to the places of worship situated in the areas to which the Act was made applicable by Punjab Act I of 1959 (hereinafter called 'the amending Act').

3. The appellant Lachman Das in Civil Appeal No. 1251 of 1969 alleges that he is an Udasi Faquir belonging to the Udasi Sect founded by Sri Chand; that he was the Mahant of Gurdwara Sahib Pinjore for several years and in that capacity was in possession and control of all the properties belonging to it that the Mahantship of an Udasi Gurdwara devolves from Guru to Chella which is opposed to the belief of the Sikhs who believe only in ten Gurus and none else, and that though the Gurdwara is an Udasi Gurdwara it has been included in Schedule I of the Act the effect of which, read with sub-sections (2) and (4) of Section 3, makes the declaration in the notification that it is a Sikh Gurdwara conclusive and incapable of being challenged.

4. The appellant Dharam Das in Civil Appeal No. 354 of 1969 is an Udasi Sadh and Mahant of Dera Udasi Sadhan. It is alleged that the followers of this Sampradaya form a distinct religious denomination, as such the notification dated February 17, 1961 including it in Schedule I of the Act is objectionable. It is further stated that not even the notice under Section 7(4) of the Act was given to the appellant and he was not allowed to contest that the applicants were neither Sikhs nor worshippers of the institution in dispute, nor are the fifty or more persons required for making an application under Section 7(1) of the Act and who made the application residents of the relevant Police Station, nor could the allegations that the signatures were obtained by fraud or that the application was not in time be enquired into. The notification was further challenged on the grounds that there was no authority which is required to satisfy itself that the applicants were alive or dead nor does the Act give a right to the Mahant, the person seriously affected, to challenge the locus standi of the applicants.

5. The first appellant in C. A. 1222 of 1969 claims that he was appointed by the village Panchayat as the Mahant after removing Gurcharan Singh who succeeded after the death of the last Mahant Hari Singh who was the Guru, because Hari Singh had contracted a marriage. He alleged that the Dera in dispute known as Gurdwara Punjab Sahib was established by one Mahant Kesera Singh. The Dera has considerable properties movable and immovable which are managed by the village Panchayat which also appoints Mahant from amongst the Chellas of the previous Mahants. The succession, according to these averments, devolves from Guru to Chela, but if a Mahant after he succeeds contracts a marriage he is liable to be removed by the village Panchayat and another is appointed by them who will not be a hereditary Mahant within the meaning of the Act. According to the appellant on April 11, 1961 about 52 persons of Tahsil Barnala, District Sangrur, gave an a