D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) The facts giving rise to this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows. The petitioner is one Swami Ganesh Das Ji Udasi. He is the Chella of Swami Harnam Das, the last incumbent of gaddi known as Shri Sadhbella Tirath, Satguru Bankhandi Ashram. This Ashram was situated at Sukkur (Sind) now part of West Pakistan. After the partition of the country, Swami Harnam Das executed the will annexure 'B' to the petition. Whereby he appointed the petitioner as his Chella. This is a registered will and it will be appropriate to notice some of its pertinent provisions. In the opening part of the will, it is stated that- ".........lest there should arise disputes regarding the gaddi of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur and the property attached to it, I make this will, of my own free will, in full possession of senses..." There after is the recital regarding a number of wills exacuted by the said Mahant and their revocation by this will. The will then recites that... ........ .All the Sadhus residing there are under the control and subordination of the Gadesar Mahant Sahib of Shri Sadhebella Tirath Sukkur and the property of Sadhbella Tirath-moveable and immovable thereof and of the abovementioned Asthans and Mandirs etc. is the property of the Gadesar Mahant of Shri Sadhbella Tirath of which the executant is the Gadesar Mahant now and I am the owner of all the property movable and immovable of Shri Sadhbella Tirath Asthans and all the property is in my possession and enjoyment and none else has any right thereto or interest therein. It is also recited that during the life time of the executant, he was to be the owner of the property and no one else was to have any right or interest in it. After his death, his chella "......Ganesh Das will be entitled to sit on my gaddi of the above mentioned Sadhbella Asthan Sukkur and he will inherit, for his whole life, the property of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkar and of the above mentioned subordinate Asthans and Mandirs that exists this day or comes to light hereafter or that which is acquired hereafter. All this property belongs to S:-i Sadhbella Tirath Asthan After my demise, Bawa Ganesh Das will be entitled to sit on the gaddi of Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur and the above named Ganesh Das will be the owner, possessor and custodian of all the property, moveable and immovable of the above mentioned Asthans and Mandirs etc. during his life time", Under clause 13 of the will, it is provided that :- "After my death no gaddinashin Mahant will have the right to alienate by gift, lease or mortogage the existing immoveable property of Shri Sadhbella or that which might be acquired later". Right of alienation is conferred under very limited circumstances and that too for purposes of the institution.
(2.) Clause 16 of which, there has been a lot of argument before me reads thus- "After my death he who succeeds as, above or any other person will have no right to appoint trustees or Amins for the property or the administration of Sri Sadhbella or to take decision tharefor. But if any one would act to the contrary, it will not operate, in any case. The righful claimant will have the right to administer Sri Sadhbella Tirath Sukkur but will have no power to appoint trustees or Amins or to take decision aboat or to effect sale". After, clause 17, the whole of the property is mentioned and thereafter the executant has put his signatures to the will. ;
(3.) Due to the exigencies of the partition, .the Mahant, that is, Swami Harnam Das moved to India and settled in Banaras, where he died in 1949 and thereafter, the present petitioner succeded to the gaddi in accordance with the will annexure 'B' tothis petition. The petitioner applied for registration of his claim under the Displaced Persons (Claims) Act, 1950 and that claim was duly registered with regard to the properties specified in the will. The total value of the property four which the claim was registered, was stated to be Rs. 8,63,100.00. After the coming into force of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act No. 44 of 1954, the amount of compensation, was determined at 1.31.992.00 in the year 1957. Before any property could be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of this claim or compensation paid towards it, the department suo motu issued a notice annexure "K" to the petition requiring the petitioner to show cause why his verified claim should not be revised. The petitioner appeared in response tothis notice and his claim was revised and set aside on the ground that the petitioner's claim 'could not be registered with regard to religious and charitable properties. It may, however, be mentioned that no hearing was given to the petitioner when the order setting asids his claim was passed. This appears from the decision of this court in Civil Writ 213-D/1959 which will be presently noticed, to order ravisln^ tliJ claim was passed by Mr. P.L. Sood, AiJitioial Sittlem'it C^nnisssioasr oa 24th January, 1959, which is anasxure 'L' to th3 petition was allowed against this order a petitioa under Article 225 of th3 Constitution of India was moved in this Court. Tait pitltioa was i'ilo/vil and th3 order of Mr. Sood was quashed on th3 gro'atii that it has bsen passed without giving the petitioner, a hsaring. It is appar^at from th3 order of this court that the learned Juige quashed this order on the basis of the concession made by the Department. It was accordingly directed that the matter should be .further processed in accordance with law. Thereafter in presence of the petitioner, the matter was reconsidered and the impugned order was passed by Shri K.L. Wason, Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 4th February 1954, this is annexure 'Q' to the petition. The operative part of the order is that the properties for which th3 claimant filed the present claim were hld to bs properties of a public trust of a religious and charitable nature. It was directed that the Regional Settlement Commissioner concgrnad was to take notice of the above facts under provision of S3ction2(l)(e)of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. No further proceedings were taken against this order bsfors any authority and the pstitioner has moved this court under Articles 226 ani 227 of the Constitution of India.;