MAHANT DHARAM DAS ETC. ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1975] 3 S.C.R. 160 · Decided: 14-01-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, HANS RAJ KHANNA, P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

160 
MAHANT DHARAM DAS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
January 14, 1974 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, H. R. KHANNA AND 
P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Siklz Gurudwaras Act (Pun.jab Act 8 of 1925) as amanded by Ac1 I of 1959 
.11" 3, 7 and 8-.ff viola/Ive of Arts. 14, 19(1)(/) and 26 of the Constitution. · 
The Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925, enacted for providing control and manage-
ment of Sikh Gurudwaras, was extended to the area known as PEPSU, by Punjab 
Act I of 1959 with certain modificat:ons. The scheme of the Act is that places 
of worship about which there was no doubt were placed in Schedule I.· Part 
[[[ of the Act, which describes and regulates the manner of management could 
be made applicable by speedy assertion of 'the claim made on behalf of the 
shrines to properties, under ss. 3 to 6. Section 3 ( 4) makes tlie declaration in 
the notification under s. 3 (2) that it is a Sikh Gurudwara conclusive and incap-
able of being cbitllenged. Whether any place not included in Schedule I should 
or should not be placed under the provisions of Part III could be determined 
in the manner provided for in ss. 7 to 11. An application for such a purpose 
may b;~ made by 50 or more Sikh worshippers under s. 7. The State Govern-
ment shall publish the petition and the list of properties claimed by the Guru-
dwara by notification under s. 7 (3) and s. 7 (5) makes the publication of a 
notification conclusive proof that the provisiOns of sub-ss. (1) to (4) have 
been complied with. Section 7 ( 4) provides for individual notice of the Guru-
dwara's claim to a right, title or interest included in the list, to the person in 
possession of such right etc. 
The Mahan! of a Shrine• included as a Sikh Gurudwara in Schedule J, the 
Mahant of a Shrine declared to be a Sikh Gurudwara on an application under 
" 7 (I) and the Mahant of a Shrine regarding ,which an application under s. 
7(1) was pending, challenged the Constitutional validity of ss. 2(4) defining a 
hereditary office holder, 3, 7 and 8 which provides for the_ procedure for a 
declaration that a Gurudwara asserted to be a Sikh Gurudwara is not d Sikh 
Gurudwara, on the ground of violation of Arts. 14, 19(l)(f) and 26. Rejecting 
all the contentions, 
HELD (Per A. N. Ray, CJ., P. Jaganmohan Reddy and P. K. Goswami. 
JI) : I (a) As regards the Gurudwara included in Schedule I of the Act :it was 
~lcclared to be a Sikh Gurudwara long prior to the coming into force of the 
Constitution and was managed by the Interim Gurudwara Board constituted by 
the Firman of the Maharaja which was the law of the PEPSU and has the force 
of law even after coming into force of the Constitution by virtue of Ari. 372 
and continues to be law till it was repealed and substituted by a law made: by a 
competent legislature. The Mahant, therefore. had no manner of right during 
the entire period from 1946, when the Firman was issued till long afkr the 
amending Act, nor did he even assert his right thereto since then until the pre-
'ent proceedings. He cannot, therefore, be allowed now to challenge the factum 
that the Gurudwara is a Sikh Gurudwara. 
[174G-!75B] 
(b) The respondent specifically raised the contention and asserted in the 
plcadini;s that the Gurudwara was a Sikh Gurndwara and that its possession 
and management ha<l vested in the Interim Gurudwara Board in PEPSU. !.l 75E: 
li6A-BJ 
(c) The entry relating to the last Jnmabandi for the year 1954-55 d0<~s not 
show that the Gurudwara was a Udasi Gurudwara. It shows that the Mahan! 
was working under the management of the Interim Gurudwara Board. Many 
of the Sikh Gurudwaras were managed by Udasis and under the firmans, 
the 
Interim Gurudwara Board, which was in management of the Gurudwara, could 
get the affairs of the Gurudwara looked after by others 1mder their supervision. 
fl75F-Hl 
(d) Therefore, the question whetl1er the Gutudwara was a Sikh Gurudwara 
or was a Udassi Gurndwarn had been determined as early as 1946 by the firman 
A 
B 
c 
D 
[ 
F. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
DHARAM DAS v. PUNJAB (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 
161 
o.f the Maharaja. 
The fact that the appellant alleged that he was in posses-
sion of the Gurudwara was of little moment because if the law vested the 
management in the Interim Gurudwara Board the possession of the appellant 
would either be permiJsible or hostile. In either case the status of the Gurud-
wara as a Sikh Gurudwara had been determined before the Constitution and 
since it wa"S a pre-consti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.