AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—Do the provisions of the places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 (Act 42 of 1991) render the inclusion of Gurudwaras in Schedule I to the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 and the orders passed thereunder void only because the execution proceedings are pending? This is the short question that has been raised in these two writ petitions which have been listed together for hearing. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 1783 of 1994. The undisputed facts may be briefly noticed.
Gurdwara Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib is located in Patti Manga. The petitioners who are residents of village Khiala Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa, allege that this Gurdwara was initially under the management of Jat Tiwana. Thereafter, Surjan Singh was recorded as the Mahant followed by his son, Jiwan Singh. On his death, Mahant Gurdit Singh son of Jiwan Singh took over the management. Thereafter, his son, Kartar Singh started managing and controlling the institution also its properties in the capacity of a Mahant, Mohatmim and Gaddinashin. The petitioners claim to be assisting him in the over all control end administration and up-keeping of the Institution and its properties. All the incumbents of the office of Mahantship have been Tiwana Jats who had founded the village and are the owners of the landed property. They had established the Institution for the purposes of worship.
The provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 were extended to the State of Pepsu in the year 1959. By a notification dated August 25, 1959, the Gurdwara was notified as a Sikh Gurdwara. A copy of this notification is at annexure P-3 with the writ petition. By another notification of July 21, 1961, the Governor of Punjab published a consolidated list of rights, titles and interests claimed to belong to the Sikh Gurdwara...." Mahant Gurdit Singh filed a petition u/s 5(1) of the 1925 Act claiming that the land situated in Villages Malkpur, Khila Kalan, Khiala Khurd and Kat Lalu was his ancestral property. He also claimed ownership of the building shown to be belonging to the Gurdwara. The claim made by the Mahant was con-tested by the Shiromani Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee, Respondent No.5. The State Government referred the matter to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal.Vide order dated August 28, 1963, the Tribunal rejected the claim of Mahant Gurdit Singh and held that the property vested in Respondent No. 5. A copy of the order passed by the Tribunal is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. Mahant Gurdit Singh filed F.A.O. No. 195 of 1963. This was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated February 24, 1972. A copy of the judgment is at Annexure P-6 with the writ petition.
The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (Respondent No.5) filed a suit for possession of the notified Sikh Gurdwara as also the lands mentioned in the notification dated July 21, 1961. Vide its judgment dated November 10, 1971, the Tribunal decreed the suit. Gurdit Singh having died in the meantime, his son Kartar Singh filed an appeal viz. RFA No. 17 of 1972. This appeal was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and decree dated October 4, 1982. The order passed by the Tribunal is at Annexure R.1 with the written statement filed by respondent No.5. The decree passed by this Court in RFA No. 17 of 1972 is at annexure R.2. Thereafter, the Committee of management initiated execution proceedings through the general attorney of Shiromani Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar. The learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda decided this application vide order dated December 5, 1990. He ordered that "as far as the Gurdwara building mentioned at No.1 of the execution application is concerned, the decree in respect of the same is executable and no objection has been raised by either party in respect of the Gurdwara building." As such, he ordered that warrant of actual possession in respect of the Gurdwara building be issued. With regard to the land, it was held that "the execution application is not maintainable because of the fact that the Khasra numbers possession of which is sought by the decree holder in this (these) execution proceedings are entirely different from the Khasra numbers regarding which the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.1971." However, it was ordered that the decree holder shall be entitled to get the decree amended by incorporating the new Khasra number as carved out during the consolidation proceedings and then to file" fresh application for possession." It was also held that Jaswant Singh and Hazura Singh cannot be physically ousted from the land under their tenancy in the execution proceedings in the absence of a specific order of a competent revenue Court. A Civil Revision Petition No. 1556 of 1992 challenging the order of the executing Court is stated to be still pending."
These are the undisputed facts.
In the background of the above-noted factual position, Mr. Arun Palli, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the provisions of the 1991 Act, a Private Gurdwara cannot be converted into a Sikh Gurdwara; the decree passed by the Tribunal cannot be executed and that the petitioners cannot be divested of the management of the Gurdwara as also the property attached thereto.
on the other hand, it has been contended by Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the notification dated August 25, 1959 (Annexure P.3) and the notification dated July 21, 1961 (Annexure P.4) having already received judicial sanction and become final, the provisions of the 1991 Act are not attracted. Learned counsel has further submitted that the mere pendency of the execution proceedings is of no consequence as the judgments and decree had attained finality, in the year 1972 when FAO No. 195 of 1968 was dismissed and on October 4, 1982 when the decree for possession was affirmed by this Court.
Before proceeding to consider the respective submissions, it is apt to notice the provisions of the 1991 Act. This Act was enacted by the parliament "to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto." According to Section 1(3), "the provisions of Sections 3, 6 and 8 shall come into force at once and the remaining provisions of this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 11th day of July, 1991." Section 2 gives the definition of the various forms. Section 3 provided that no person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section there of into a place of warship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof. Since, counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on Section 4, it may be noticed in extenso. It reads as under:-
"4. Declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of Courts etc.-
(1) It is hereby declared that the religious character of place of worship existing on the 15th day of August 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.
(2) If, on the commencement of this Act, any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to the conversion of the religious character of any place of worship existing on the 15th day of August 1947, is pending before any court, tribunal or other authority, the same shall abate and no. suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any such matter shall lie on or after such commencement in any court, tribunal or other authority.
Provided that if any suit, appeal or other proceedings, instituted or filed on the ground that conversion has taken place in the religious character of any such place after the 15th day of August 1947, is pending on the commencement of this Act, such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall not so abate and every such suit, appeal or other proceeding shall be disposed of in according with the provisions of Sub-section (1).
(3) Nothing contained in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) shall apply to -
(a) any place of worship referred to in the said sub-sections which is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site or remains covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1158 (24 of 1958) or any other law for the time being in forces.
(b) any dispute with respect to any such matter settled by the parties amongst themselves before such commencement.
(c) any suit, appeal or other proceeding with respect to any matter referred to in sub-section
(2), finally decided, settled or disposed of by a court, tribunal or other authority before the commencement of this Act.
(d) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement by acquiescence.
(e) any conversion of any such place effected before such commencement which is not liable to be challenged in any court, tribunal or other authority being barred by limitation under any law for the time being in force."
Clause (1) is aimed at protecting the religious character of a place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947. In furtherance of this object, it has been provided in Clause (2) that any proceeding which are pending on the date of the commencement of the Act viz. July 11, 1991 ''as provided in Section 2(a) shall automatically abate. It also debars the Courts, Tribunal or any other authority from entertaining a suit after July 11, 1991 for the purpose of conversion of the religious character of any place of worship. However, the proviso carves out an exception. The Court shall not be debarred from deciding a suit, appeal or other proceeding in which it is claimed that conversion had taken place in the religious character of any place of worship after August 15, 1947 which is pending on the date of the commencement of the Act. However, such proceedings have to be decide in conformity with Clause (1) by which the religious character of the place of worship has to be protected. Clause (3) is in the nature of a saving provision. Sub-clauses (c) and (e) are relevant for the purpose of the present case. By Sub-clause (c), matters which have been finally decided by a court, tribunal or other authority before the commencement of the Act are left untouched. Still further, a conversion of a place of worship effected before the commencement of the Act, a challenge to which has become barred by limitation is also immune from the operation of the Act.
What is the position in the present case?
The notification u/s 3(1) regarding the inclusion of the Gurdwara in dispute was issued on August 25, 1959. The property attached to the Gurdwara was notified u/s 3(2) of the 1925 Act. The challenge to these notifications was rejected by the Tribunal on August 28, 1963. The appeal was dismissed by the High Court on February 24, 1972. Still further, the suit filed by the Committee for possession of the Gurdwara and the property was decreed by the Tribunal on November 10, 1971 and RFA No. 17 of 1972 was dismissed by this Court on October 4, 1982. All these orders had attained finality prior to the commencement of the Act. consequently, even if, it is assumed that a declaration u/s 3(1) of the Act or the inclusion of a Gurdwara in Schedule I amounts to conversion of place of worship, it is protected by the provisions of Section 4(3) (c) and (e) of the Act.
Mr. Arun Palli, counsel for the petitioners submitted that execution proceedings are "other proceedings" as contemplated u/s 4(2). It was contended that since the decree had not been finally executed, the proceedings "shall abate and no suit or other proceeding shall be competent, after the commencement of the Act."
This contention cannot be accepted. Firstly, the expression "other proceedings" does not relate to the execution of decrees. It only contemplates proceedings whereby the substantive rights or the issue of conversion of the religious character of place of worship has to be adjudicated. Secondly, it is the admitted position on the record that the objections filed by various persons during the execution proceedings were decided by the learned additional District Judge vide his order dated December 5, 1990. A copy of this order as already mentioned, is on record as Annexure R.3. The Committee was held entitled to take possession of the Gurdwara. Warrant of possession was ordered to be issued. It was claimed by Mr. Sarin that possession of the building of the Gurdwara had been taken. This fact was not controverted on behalf of the petitioners. Consequently, it is apparent that so far as the place of worship is concerned, the proceedings had concluded and stand disposed of by the court before the commencement of the Act. No execution proceedings were, thus, pending on the date of the commencement of the Act in so far as the place of worship is concerned. The land attached to the Gurdwara is not a "place of worship" as defined in Section 2(c). It is not temple, mosque, Gurdwara, Church, monastery or any other place of religious worship. Consequently, the provisions of the Act have no application to the property attached to the Gurdwara.
It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are owners in possession. According to Mr. Palli, the change of management of private Gurdwara into a Sikh Gurdwara would amount to conversion.
This contention cannot be accepted. As already observed. Gurdwara is the holy place of worship. The proceedings in so far as the Gurdwara is concerned, had commenced with the declaration u/s 3(1) and the inclusion of the Gurdwara in Schedule I in the year 1959. These had concluded on December 5, 1990 when warrant of possession was given. So far as the land attached to the Gurdwara is concerned, it is not covered by the provisions of the 1991 Act. Consequently, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is rejected.
It was also suggested that even change of management amounts to conversion. In the context of the facts of present case, even if it is assumed that change of management falls within the mischief of conversion, it is of no consequence for the conversion must be of the religious character of a place of worship. It is only then that it can fall within the mischief of Section 8. Still further, the has not been shown that only persons belonging to a particular religious denomination were entitled to worship and that now the Gurdwara has been converted into a place of worship of a different religious denomination of any section thereof.
No other point has been urged.
Consequently, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners are rejected.
Before concluding, it may be mentioned that the Act appears to have been once enacted with the object of ensuring that no conversion of any place of worship takes place after the promulgation of the Act. It is with the object of achieving this purpose that a provision for abatement of pending proceedings has been made. However, if conversion has taken place before the commencement of the Act on July 11, 1991, the Act does not purport to set it at naught. In the present case, the Gurdwara was open to every on for worship. In the year 1959, it was declared a Sikh Gurdwara. It was included in Schedule. Today, if the petition is accepted, it would amount to converting a Sikh Gurdwara into a private Institution. It would amount to annulling the Notifications issued by the competent authority as also the decrees passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by this Court. This may well amount to conversion. It cannot be allowed.
No other point was raised in C.P. No. 8449 of 1994.
In view of the above, the question posed at the outset is answered in the negative.
According, there is no merit in these petitions which are dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.