- (1.) HOW arbitrarily, sometime the functionaries of the Government deal with valuable rights of the citizens would be illustrated by the facts of this case.
(2.) IN the city of Amritsar, there exists a renowned Akhara of Udasi sect known by the name of "akhara Shri Brahman Buta". Petitioner claims himself to be Mohatmim, Mahant and Gaddi Nashim of the said Akhara. It is a religious and charitable institution and is being considered as the parent institution of the famous Udasin Sampardaya in the country and exists for the last several hundred years. It has huge properties in various parts of the country and the same are being managed and controlled by the Akhara through its Gaddi Nashim Mahant with a committee of Management. It is a registered trust. It is pleaded that prior to February 16,1981 Shri 108 Mahant Bikram Dass Ji was the Mahant and Gaddi Nashin of the Akhara and was looking after its management and control for more than twenty years. He was only saint and held that highest positions and status amongst the Udasin sect and was the President of All Indian Udasin Prishad and also "udasin Maha Mandal", Punjab. According to the custom prevalent, the Gaddi to Mahantship always develops upon from Guru to Chela. It is the Udasin Bhek and management of this Akhara which is instrumental in appointment of Mahant in consultation with the ruling Mahant or according to his wishes after his death. In case the ruling Mahant wishes to relinquish Mahantship on the ground of health, old age or any other reasons, the same custom rituals and ceremonies are held and he passes on his Gaddi to his Chela in his lifetime in consultation with the members of the Bhek and the Committee. Shri Mahant Bikram Dass Ji expressed his wish that petitioner should be appointed as Mahant of the institution vide resignation dated February 16, 1981. On the same very day resignation was considered by the Committee of Management and in view of the kinship and services rendered by the petitioner, he was considered to be most capable for appointment as Mahant as also Sadhus, Sants and Mahants of Udasin Bhek from various institutions of the Udasin Bhek assembled and unanimously decided to install petitioner on the Gaddi of Mahantship and as such he was installed and appointed in the said gathering. His name was entered by various authorities in the column of ownership in the capacity of Mahant and mutations were sane tioned in his favour and duly reflected in the record of rights. After he was duly appointed as Mahant, he assumed all powers and control of the institution and its properties throughout India. Thereafter, Shri Mahant Bikram Dass expired and petitioner was brought on the records of several cases pending in Civil Court, High Court and Supreme Court as his legal representative and continued to process those cases as plaintiff, defendant, appellant, petitioner or respondent according to the situation of each case. Everything was going on peacefully and without any interference or disturbance till such time the law and order situation in the State of Punjab deteriorated. The location of the Akhara is such that its one side opens right on the Parikarma of Golden Temple and one side adjoins residential premises of the employees of S. G. P. C. The third side adjoins Sarai Guru Ram Dass and S. G. P. C. complex whereas the main entrance i. e. Darshni Deorhi opens in Guru Ram Dass Bazar which also adjoins the Langar building. It is pleaded that in the month of April, 1984, the group involved in terrorists activities, cooked up a plan to capture and forcibly occupy the institution for its covetous location and to achieve their nefarious designs, it stormed in the institution from the side of Parikarma. Respondent No. 4 is stated to be a person who led this group for forcibly occupying the institution. Petitioner-was made captive and forced to sign certain blank papers antedating the same at gun point. He was beaten, tortured and confined in isolation without even food and water for several days and in he process all other occupants of the institution were thrown out and the premises were converted into fortified out-post for attacking para-military forces. It is stated that a mention of this incident was given by the Government of India in its white paper released on July 18, 1984 immediately after the operation "blue Star". The relevant extract of the said paper has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with the petition. On account of temporary confinement of Petitione, respondent No. 4 declared himself as Mahant of the institution on the strength of forged writings which were manufactured on the papers on which signatures of petitioner were obtained at gun point. Petitioner, after his release from illegal detention, lodged First Information Report No. 43 dated July 5, 1984 under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act in the Police Station, Amritsar. Respondent No. 4 secured anticipatory bail from this Court on August 6, 1984. He was taken into custody and tried by the Special Court, Judicial Zone, Jalandhar but was acquitted vide orders dated June 6, 1985. It is pleaded that order of acquittal has since been challenged in the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to detail all other facts as have been pleaded in the petition and suffice it to say that respondent No. 4 after having lost his claim to be substituted or brought on records as Mahant of the institution, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against petitioner claiming himself to be Mahant of the institution having been duly appointed by the Bhek and in complete control and management of the Akhara and its properties as also restraining the petitioner from interfering in his management and further restraining petitioner from dispossessing him. Alongwith the above suit, he also filed an application for ad-interim injunction under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This matter was hotly contested by petitioner and Civil Court vide its order dated September 22, 1984 vacated the exparte stay order earlier granted. The operative part of the said order reads thus: "18. In view of what has been discussed above, I feel that the plaintiff has not been able to prove prima facie that he is a validly appointed Mahant of the Akhara. The plaintiff claims to have been appointed Mahant during the period before the Military action, in Punjab. It is a matter of common observation that before the Military action there was every possibility of the papers having been got executed from the defendant at the gun point as alleged by him. 19. The Last argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the properties of the Akhara and it is now well settled that even a trespasser cannot be disposed except in due process of law and hence he is entitled too an injunction against the forcible dispossession. As observed above, I am of the view that the possession over the properties of the Akhara is of the Akhara itself. It is Mahant only manages the properties. That right accrues to him only when he is validly appointed Mahant but in view of my aforesaid discussion the plaintiff has not been able to prove and he is a validly appointed Mahant. He cannot be, therefore, said to be in possession of the properties. 20. In the result the ex-parte stay given on application cannot be extended and it is hereby vacated. My observations are, however, for the limited purpose of stay and will not affect the decision on the merits of the case. " Against this order of Sub Judge, respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal which came up for preliminary hearing before Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who passed the following order on September 27,1984: "appeal received through entrustment for disposal. It be registered. Heard, Admitted. Records for October 17, 1984. As regards possession of the suit property, status qua ante be maintained between the parties till further orders. " The Joint Secretary to Government of Punjab, Revenue Department in consequence of Civil Court orders, that have been mentioned above, passed order, Annexure P-12, on May 2, 1986. Taking clue from this order, Annexure P-12 Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar addressed letter to all the Tehsildars in District Amritsar, Ajnala, Tarn-Taran, Patti and Baba Bakala that they were required to review the mutations of Akhara Brahm Buta presently in the name of Mahant Ravinder Dass. It was further directed in the said order that entries be made in the records of rights in the name of Akhara Braham Buta immediately as due to their negligence Ravinder Dass is continuing to be shown in the same. A further direction was given to them to review the mutations which had yet not been incorporated in the Jamabandis. It is these two orders, Annexure P-12 and P-15, that have been challenged in this petition.
(3.) MR. P. K. Palli, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner forcefully contends that both orders, Annexure P-12 and P-15, are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as not only petitioner, whose rights were to be affected, was not heard in the matter but the same were passed on the basis of Civil Court orders which in turn no where even remotely mentioned that petitioner should no more be Mahant or Mohtmim of the Akhara. With a view to fortify his contention, learned counsel has taken me through the orders passed by Sub Judge while dealing with the application of respondent No. 4 in pending Civil Suit under order 39 rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the orders passed by the Additional District Judge in appeal preferred by him i. e. respondent No. 4. The relevant portion of the order, that has been relied upon by, learned counsel, requires to be noticed: "10. The defendant was admittedly the Mahant before the plaintiff whereas the case of plaintiff is that he is a validly appointed Mahant, the case of defendant is that plaintiff is not a validly appointed Mahant, and that all the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in support of his Mahantship were got executed from the defendant at gun point. There can be no doubt that if the documents on which the plaintiff relies are proved to have been executed by the plaintiff at gun point or under fear of death, the plaintiff is not a validly appointed Mahant of the Akhara. 11. Documents have been placed on record showing that the defendant had been appointed Mahant of the Akhara on 16. 2. 1981. These documents further show that previous to the defendant, Mahant Bikram Dass was the Mahant and the defendant was a Chela. The defendant had to be appointed Mahant because Bikram Dass had submitted his resignation because of his ill health and had showed his willingness to appoint the defendant, his Chela, as Mahant. The Managing Committee of the Akhara and the Udasin Bhek then came into action and did a gathering and appointed the defendant as Mahant. It will be seen that the resignation of Bikram Dass and the resolution to appoint the defendant as Mahant are of the same date. It also comes to light that the defendant was appointed as Mahant being Chela of the previous Mahant Bikram Dass by, Udasin Bhek and the Managing Committee of the Akhara. It is a matter of common observation also that such a bigger Akhara must be having a Managing Committee to watch and activities of the Mahant of the time. There are extracts from the Minutes Book of the Akhara showing that this Dera has got a Managing Committee. The Managing Committee had filed a lilt of the Managing members for the year 1984-85 with the Registrar of Firms and Societies and an acknowledgement to that effect is on the file. One more thing is there that after the appointment of the defendant as Mahant, he had executed a trust deed in favour of the Managing Committee of the Akhara and had agreed inter-alia that he would not marry himself. It is not to be seen as to whether the plaintiff was also appointed as Mahant in the manner in which the defendant had been appointed as Mahant so as to say that the plaintiff is a validity appointed Mahant. x x x x x x x x x x x x 14. It will be seen that the Managing Committee of the Akhara does not seem to have taken any part in the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant. I have observed above that it is proved on record that there was a Managing Committee of the Akhara. This Managing Committee took part while appointing the defendant as Mahant and the defendant executed a Trustee nama in favour of that Managing Committee. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the Managing Committee has ceased to existor that there was no need of the Managing Committee taking part into the election of the plaintiff as Mahant. It means that an important body concerned with the appointment of Mahant of the Akhara was kept away at the time of the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant. The alleged resignation of the defendant has not been accepted by the Managing Committee, and this is why there is no acceptance of the alleged resignation of the defendant. The alleged proceedings having been conducted at the time of the appointment ? of plaintiff as Mahant are also not in the minute book of the Managing Committee. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the Managing Committee is colluding with the defendant and this is why the record of the Managing Committee could not be brought on record and that can be shown light of the day only at the time of evidence. At this stage, I am concerned with the decision of the stay application and am supposed to peruse all the relevant documents will lead to the presumption that they are not available. The Managing Committee had held meetings even after the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant. Instead of proving the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant in these proceedings the Managing Committee had shown concern over the act of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been able to show the act of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been able to show the participation of any member of the Managing Committee at the time of alleged appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant. The proceedings dated 26. 4. 1984 are not shown to have been signed by any member of the Managing Committee. The appointment of the defendant as Mahant was done by the Managing Committee as well as by Udasin Bhek. The case of the plaintiff even the Udasin Bhek in to does not seem to have joined heads together to appoint the plaintiff as Mahant. According to the proceedings dated 26. 4. 1984 themselves, the proceedings were attended by Udasin Bhek Nirmlas and Addan Shahi Sants. It can be therefore easily said that the appointment of the plaintiff as Mahant has not been proved by the concerned authorities. x x x x x 15. x x x x I am, therefore, one with the learned counsel of the defendant that there was no question of the defendant resigning on the ground of ill-health. Moreover, there is nothing on the record to show that the defendant is suffering from any incurable disease so as to submit his resignation on the ground of ill-health. Further the plaintiff has not executed any document in favour of the Managing Committee. The appointment of the defendant as Mahant goes to show that there is a practice of appointment only a Chela of the previous Mahant as subsequent Mahant. The plaintiff is however not shown to be Chela of the defendant. There was thus no question of suggesting the name of the plaintiff by the defendant for appointment as the Mahant. ";