S.P. Goyal, J. - (1.) THE State Government, - vide Notification No. 4480 G.P. dated July 5, 1963, published a petition under Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the Act). claiming Gurdwara Sahib Guru Granth Sahib situate within the revenue estate of Landa, tehsil Sirhind, district Patiala, to be a Sikh Gurdwara, along with the consolidated list of rights, titles and interests belonging to the said Gurdwara. In the wake of that notification, Mahant Lachhman Dass, Appellant, submitted two petitions to the State Government, one under Section 8 and the other under Section 9 of the Act which were duly forwarded to the Tribunal. The petition filed under Section 8 was dismissed, -vide order dated January 6, 1972 with the finding that the Mahant being not hereditary office holder of the said Gurdwara, had no locus standi to present any claim petition under the said section. The decision of the Tribunal was later on affirmed by the Full Bench in F.A.O. No. 137 of 1972 decided on July 31, 1975.
(2.) IN the petition under Section 10 of the Act the Appellant pleaded that the property in dispute belonged to Dera Udasian and not to any Sikh Gurdwara and he was in its possession as Mahant of the said Dera. In the written statement filed by the Respondent, his claim was controverted and it was pleaded that the property in dispute belonged to the Gurdwara. It was further stated that the Petitioner was only Manager of the Sikh Gurdwara and was in possession of the property as such. In support of his claim, the Appellant adduced both oral and documentary evidence showing that the property belonged to the Dharamshala which was an Udasi Dera and that the Gurdwara Sahib Guru Granth Sahib was a different and separate entity situate in the said revenue estate. The stand was negatived by the Tribunal, - vide judgment dated March 1, 1976 and it was held that the Gurdwar a Sahib Guru Granth Sahib was the owner of the property in dispute. Aggrieved thereby, he filed F.A.O. No. 160 of 1976. During the pendency of that appeal, the Respondent filed a suit under Section 25-A of the Act for possession of the property declared to be belonging to the Sikh Gurdwara which was decreed, - vide judgment dated July 24, 1979. To challenge that decree, F.A.O. No. 389 of 1979 was filed. Both these appeals came up for hearing before a Division Bench and one of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Respondent before the Bench was that the question as to whether the said Dharmshala was a Sikh Gurdwara could not be gone into in view of the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 9 of the Act which provides that publication of a notification under the provisions of Sub -section (1) shall be conclusive proof that the Gurdwara is a. Sikh Gurdwara. Looking to the importance of the question, the said appeal, F.A.O. No. 160 of 1976 was referred to a Larger Bench and the other appeal ordered to be heard therewith. This is how, we are seized of these matters.
(3.) SUB-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act provides that if no petition has been presented in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 in respect of a gurdwara to which a notification published under the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 relates the State Government shall, after the expiration of ninety days from the date of such notification, publish a notification declaring the Gurdwara to be a Sikh Gurdwara. In the present case though the claim petition was filed under Section 8 by the Appellant but the same having been held to be incompetent was dismissed. Consequently, the State Government published notification Exhibit P -3 (in F.A.O. 389 of 1979) dated July 21, 1978 in the Official Gazette dated July 28, 1978 declaring Gurdwara Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib to which notification published under the provisions of Sub -section (3) of Section 7 related, to be a Sikh Gurdwara. By virtue of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act, the said notification is conclusive proof that the Gurdwara, the subject-matter of the notification is a Sikh Gurdwara. The list of the property accompanying the application filed under Section 7(3) neither forms part of the notification under Section 9(1) nor that notification in any manner determines in whom vests the right, title and interest in the said property. What to talk of the other property, the said notification even does not have the effect of the determination as to in which building a Sikh Gurdwara is situate. What is declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara is an institution in the abstract form without any reference to any construction of brick and morter. We need not dilate upon this point any further, because the same had been settled long back by the Full Bench decision in Makant Lachman Das chela Mahant Ishar Dass v. The State of Punjab, I.L.R. (1968) P&H 499 authenticity of which was challenged by none of the parties, in the following terms : Fifthly, it is clear from the law settled in Guru Amarjit Singh's case (supra) that no claim to any physical property can be made under Section 8. That being so, claims to property can be made under Section 5 in one case (in respect of Schedule I Gurdwaras) and under Section 10 in the other (Gurdwaras which are neither in Schedule I nor in Schedule II). It is rot disputed that in proceedings under Section 10, the physical Gurdwara itself can also be claimed. Still a claim under Section 10 will be tried by the Tribunal only (i) after a conclusive declaration under Section 9(2) regarding the Gurdwara being a Sikh Gurdwara is made if no objection is filed under Section 8 or (ii) after such a declaration is made consequent upon the disposal of objections filed under Section 8 and only in case the objections are dismissed as Section 16(1) of the Act requires that if in any proceedings before a Tribunal it is disputed that a Gurdwara should or should not be declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara, the Tribunal must before enquiring into any other matter in dispute relating to the said Gurdwara decide whether it should or should not be declared a Sikh Gurdwara in accordance with the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 16. Thus a claim to the physical Gurdwara itself is admittedly neither inconsistent with nor precluded by a conclusive declaration under Section 3(4) or Section 9(2) equal to a judgment in rem according to the decision of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in (Mahant) Devinder Singh v. Shriomani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Anr. (12) of the Gudwara being a Sikh Gurdwara. Same is the position vis -a -vis the extent of claim to property under Section 5 consequent on a notification under Section 3(2) which is made conclusive by Sub -section (4) of Section 3. In the absence of clear indication to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect that the scope of any of the two provisions (Section 5 and 10) is in any manner more restricted or extensive than that of the other. This will not be so if "Gurdwara" in Section 5(1) is understood to denote the physical Gurdwara of brick and morter.;