Worshippers of a Gurudwara have locus standi to file a suit for declaration of land as Gurudwara and to restrain construction on the land.

1. Unsuccessful plaintiffs, namely Mohinder Singh and Bikram Singh, earlier filed the present regular second appeal and it was directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th March, 1992 passed by Shri T.N. Gupta, District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who accepted the appeal of some of the defendants appellants Nos. 1 to 14 mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1989 itself and the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7-11-1989 by which the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants namely, Mohinder Singh and Bikram Singh for declaration was decreed.

2. It may be mentioned here at the first instance that during the pendency of the present appeal Bikram Singh plaintiff died. The cause of action survived to the co-plaintiff Mohinder Singh and vide order of this Court dated 8th March, 1996 passed in C.M. No. 1021-C of 1996 under Order 22, Rule 2, C.P.C., Mohinder Singh surviving plaintiff was allowed to continue with the appeal. Even otherwise, with the death of Bikram Singh the suit was not going to abate, as it would be evident from the facts of the suit itself.

3. Mohinder Singh and Bikram Singh filed a suit for declaration against defendants Nos. 1 to 24, including Gram Panchayat of village Saidpur (defendant No. 24) to the effect that land measuring 7 Kanals 9 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 93, Khatauni No. 173 bearing Khasra No. 268, situated in village said was a reserved piece of land for Gurudwara of village Saidpur, Tehsil Garhshanker, and the defendants be restrained from raising any kind of construction over the said plot. Alternatively it was prayed that defendants be directed by issuing mandatory injunction to remove all kinds of Malwa or any building raised by them or anyone of them on the land in suit. It was pleaded that both the plaintiffs are residents of village Saidpur and they believe in Sikh faith. During the Consolidation of Holdings of village Saidpur, which took place in the year 1951-52 or previous to these years land measuring 7 Kanals 9 Marlas was earmarked for constructing a Gurudwara by deducting lands from all the proprietors of the village. The defendants alleged that they got mutation attested in their names in connivance with the revenue staff and against the wishes of the plaintiffs and on their back the defendants have started threatening that they would construct their houses on the suit land. If this threat of the defendants materialised, the plaintiffs would suffer as their religious sentiment would be hurt.. The plaintiffs prayed that if the defendant raised any construction, then decree for mandatory injunction be passed in the alternative, directing the defendants to demolish the construction. The defendants were called several times not to raise any construction on the land earmarked for the Gurudwara during the consolidation of holdings, but they are adamant. Hence the suit.

4. The record of the trial Court shows that three written statements were filed by the defendants. However, defendant No. 24, i.e. the Gram Panchayat was proceeded against ex parte. Defendants Nos. 1 to 23 in their written statements have denied all the averments of the plaintiffs and it was alleged that consolidation of holdings took place in the village about 20-32 years back and the suit land or any part thereof was never reserved for the construction of Gurudwara- In fact, the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land for the last more than 50 years and had been auctioning it to the different persons to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Moreover, the consolidation authorities had no right to reserve any land or part thereof for this purpose. The Gram Panchayat (defendant No. 24) had allotted this land to defendants Nos. 1 to 23, being landless workers and for constructing abadies as per rules and scheme of the Government and now defendants Nos. 1 to 23 are the owners of this land and they are in possession thereof. The plaintiffs or anybody else had no right in the said land. Th