VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of five writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 14124, 14024, 14025, 14214 and 14754 of 1998 as the common challenge in all the petitions is to the vires of the Punjab Religious Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner has also challenged the filing of the eviction petition by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "SGPC") and the notice issued by the Collector on the said eviction petition. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from Civil Writ Petition No. 14124 of 1988.
(2.) CERTAIN lands are owned/attached to Gurdwara Singh Sabha Kakar Majra in District Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as the "respondent- Gurdwara"). According to the petitioner, agricultural land and some constructed premises had been given on rent by the respondent-Gurdwara to various persons. One such plot measuring 80.27 sq. yards bearing plot No. 64 was rented out to the petitioner about 30 years ago and petitioner claimed that he is in occupation of the premises since 1968-69. Initially the plot in question was rented out to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 360/- per annum but later on rent was enhanced and at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner claims to be paying the rent at the rate of Rs. 900/- per annum. The petitioner had pleaded that, similarly, various other persons had also been let out small plots of different areas varying from 500 sq. ft. to 1000 sq. ft. In the year 1978, the respondent-Gurdwara came under the control and management of SGPC. According to the petitioner thereafter the tenants of the respondents-Gurdwara started paying rent to SGPC. The petitioner claims that the rent is being regularly collected by various persons of SGPC. He relies upon certain rent receipts in this regard. The State of Punjab enacted the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, Punjab Act No. 4 of 1998 with effect from January 29, 1998. The aforesaid Act provides for the eviction of an unauthorised occupant from religious premises and for certain incidental matters. Section 2(d) of the Act defines "religious institution", whereas Section 2(e) defines a "religious premises". Section 3 of the Act defines "unauthorised occupation" of any religious premises by a person. Section 4 of the Act provides for an application to be filed by a religious institution, with regard to unauthorised occupation of any religious premises. It further provides that on filing of such application after following the procedure laid therein, the Collector may pass an order of eviction against such unauthorised occupants. Against the order of eviction, an appeal is provided under Section 8 of the Act to the Commissioner. Section 9 of the Act provides for finality of the order passed by the Commissioner and it is provided that the order passed by the Commissioner shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred in this Act. Section 12 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any religious premises or recovery of the arrears of rent.
(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the vires of the aforesaid Act. It has been maintained that the Act has defined a religious institution and religious premises, with regard to the properties owned by religious institutions and, therefore, the aforesaid enactment was clearly hit by the principle of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India. It has been maintained by the petitioner that the aforesaid definition provided unguided and unfettered powers to the Collector and, therefore the Act was also violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has also maintained that factually he had been inducted as a tenant by the respondent- Gurdwara in the year 1968-69 and since then he had been paying rent regularly, earlier to the respondent-Gurdwara and later on to SGPC. On that basis it has been maintained that the Collector had no jurisdiction to treat the petitioner as unauthorised occupant. A specific challenge has been made by the petitioner to the explanation appended to Section 3 of the Act wherein it has been provided that a person shall not, merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent, be deemed to have entered into possession as an allottee, lessee or grantee. The petitioner maintains that the aforesaid explanation as a matter of fact, changes the status and character of the petitioner from that of a tenant to that of an authorised occupant. It is, thus, maintained that the aforesaid explanation was ultra vires other provisions of the Act and in any case ultra vires the Constitution of India.;