Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal has arisen from the judgment order dated. August 10, 1978 passed by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Regular First Appeal No. 252 of 1963.

2. The appellant, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, (hereinafter referred to as 'SGPC') is a product of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The State Government of Punjab received a petition under Section 7(1) of the Act from Sikh worshippers of a Gurdwara, numbering more than 50, qualified residence-wise to so apply, praying for the Gurdwara to be declared a Sikh Gurdwara. As per requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act, the name of the Gurdwara given was Gurwara Sahib Bara situated in the revenue estate of village Balian, Tehsil and District Sangrur. A list of properties said to be belonging to the Gurdwara was also given, besides the, names of the persons who were in possession of those properties. As required, under Sub-section (3) of Section 7, publication of the petition under Section 7(1) and the list of the properties provided under Section 7(2) were notified on 1.11.1960 and notices under Section 7(4) were sent to the persons in possession of the properties, said to belong to the Gurdwara.

4. D.S. TEWATIA, J., who spoke for the High Court Bench, in the judgment under appeal, painstakingly took into account each and every piece of evidence: the evidence predominantly being oral, and drawing proper inferences therefrom and went on to reverse the judgment and order of the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal. On going through the High Court judgment we were inclined to dismiss the appeal, disinclined as we were to disturb findings of fact. Sardar Ujjagar Singh, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant SGPC, however, goaded us to proceed with the appeal as, according to him, Section 16(2)(iii) had neither been properly construed nor had the evidence been appreciated within the parameters of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. Having understood the submission by his arguments and having pondered over the matter, we proceed to express our views.

5. The scheme of the Act was so designed, firstly to put certain places of Sikh worship, about which no substantial doubt existed, straight way in Schedule I. The procedure to achieve that objective was available in Section 3 of the Act and by a public declaration, as conceived therein, the scheduled Gurdwara stood proved conclusively to be a Sikh Gurdwara where management and control of it was to vest in the bodies referred to under Part III of the Act. Whether any institution not included in Schedule I should or should not be placed for management under the provisions of Part III was left to be determined upon a petition duly made by 50 or more worshippers within a prescribed period attracting objections and those being determined by the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal. It is on the finding on essential facts that the Tribunal could make a positive declaration whereafter the objective of applying provisions of Part III of the Act could be achieved. The case in hand is of the latter category and that is why 50 or more worshippers laid such claim, which claim when objected to was adopted fought by the SGPC before the Tribunal.

Shri Harcharan Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondent, frankly concedes that direct evidence to prove that the institution was established for public worship by the Sikhs is wanting in the case.

13. In face of the above admission of the counsel for the SGPC and nothing further being available on this aspect in the statements of two witnesses examined by it before the Tribunal, one being 30 years and the second being 32 years of age, and the institution having been established almost 25 to 30 years before their birth, the claim of the SGPC is not credible. It succeeded before the Tribunal only on drawing inferences from the statements of the objection and his witness, overlooking that the onus of proof of the sole issue lay on it. That onus could not be discharged merely on inferences drawn from the evidence of the objector. Ratner the burden was on the SGPC itself to prove by cogent, reliable and independent evidence that the institution, right from its inception was meant for public worship by the Sikhs. Its establishment as propounded by the objector could have been rebutted, at least in so far as the purchase of the land over which the institution stood built was concerned, by suitable evidence. The SGPC failed in that regard.