http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: MEHAR SINGH & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/12/1999

BENCH: M.J.Rao, A.P.Misra

JUDGMENT:

     M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

     Leave  granted in Special Leave Petition (C)  No.12083 of  1984.   The  Civil  Appeal No.  1921 of  1984  has  been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of the High Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana in FAO No.170  of  1972  dated 2.6.1982.   The High Court, by the said judgment,  confirmed the  Award  of  the Sikh Gurudwara  Tribunal,  Punjab  dated 20.1.1972  in  Petition No.143 of 1963 whereby the claim  of the  appellants  being  successors of one Bhai  Arjan  Singh filed  under  section 5(1) of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act,  1925 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’) was partly allowed and partly dismissed.

     The  Civil  appeal arising out of SLP(C)  No.12083  of 1984  is  filed  against the order dated  10.7.1984  in  FAO No.44/75  and that relates to possession under section 25 of the  Act.   It  is admitted that it depends  solely  on  the result  of CA No.1921 of 1984.  The Gurudwara Sahib Padshahi Chhemi  was  declared  to  be a Sikh  Gurudwara,  under  the notification  of  the  Punjab  Government  No.   1211  dated 20.7.59  and figures at Serial No.  325 in Schedule I of the Act.   Thereafter,  by  notification   No.162  Y.P.    dated 19.1.1962, issued under section 3(2) of the Act, the list of rights,  titles  and interests were claimed as belonging  to the  Gurudwara.   That  notification   contains  a  list  of agricultural  lands  and  other properties  claimed  by  the Gurudwara.   After the said notification was published, Bhai Arjan  singh  (since  deceased)  put forward  his  claim  by petition  under  section 5(1) of the Act.  The petition  was forwarded  to  the Tribunal constituted under the Act.   The Tribunal after conducting an inquiry and receiving evidence, allowed  it  in  part  in respect  of  some  properties  and dismissed  the petition in other respects.  In the petition, the  said  Bhai Arjan Singh contended that one half  of  the land  mentioned  in Part No.2 (pp.212, 214) of  Notification No.162  dated 19.1.62, entered in the revenue record in  the name  of  Langar Ji Sahib, was owned by Sri Arjan  Singh  as trustee  for the Langar,( the kitchen) while the other  half was owned personally by him and Kartar Singh etc., according to  shares specified in the Jamabandi.  He contended that no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

part  of  this  land  standing in the  name  of  the  Langar belonged to the Gurudwara.  The other contention was that in the Maufi in Part 3 of the Notification and in the Langar in Part  No.4, the Gurudwara had no rights (except in the Diwan Khana).    It  was  further   contended  that  the  property mentioned  in  Para I-A of the Petition was donated  by  the petitioner’s ancestors for the use of the Langar for members of  "all  communities"  and that he and his  ancestors  were functioning  as  hereditary trustees.  One half of the  land which  was in the name of the Langar Ji Saheb in the revenue record  was set apart for running the Langar for the use and benefit  of  all  and  Sundry and that the  Langar  was  not constructed  for  the benefit of the Sikh  Community  alone. The  major  portion  of  the property  described  as  Langar comprised of the residential house, Bare and Khras owned and possessed  by  the  petitioner, though the Langar  was  also being  run  in  a portion of it.  The  petition  traced  his ancestry to Bhai Rup Chand who founded the village Bhai Rupa but  contended that neither the petitioner nor his ancestors were  ever  Mahants  of the Gurudwara.   The  Gurudwara  was having  a  separate Mahant or Granthi.  The  petitioner,  as trustee  of  the  Langar, acquired title to the  land.   The Gurudwara  and  the  Langar  were  separate  entities.   The Gurudwara  never exercised any control over the Langar.  The petitioner,  Bhai  Arjan Singh, therefore, prayed  that  the properties  in Parts 2, 3 and 4(excepting the DiwanKhana  in Part  4) be declared as not belonging to the Gurudwara.  The Gurudwara,  filed  a  written  statement on  behalf  of  the respondent   Committee   on  8.4.63,   denying   the   above allegations  and contending that all the properties -whether recorded in revenue accounts in the name of the Langar or in the  names  of the sharers, belonged to the Gurudwara,  that the  petitioner and his ancestors were holding the land  and other  property  as Mahants of the Gurudwara Sahib and  that the  Langar and the Gurudwara were a single entity and  both were  being  run  by the Gurudwara.  On the  pleadings,  the Tribunal  under  the  Act  framed the  following  point  for consideration:

     "Does  the property in suit vest in the petitioner  or in the notified Sikh Gurudwara?"

     The petitioner Arjan singh examined himself as PW6 and adduced  evidence  of PWs 1 to 5 and filed Ex.  P1  to  P20. The  Gurudwara Committee examined RWs 1 to 10 and marked Ex. R1  to R12.  The spot was inspected by the President and the two  members  of the Tribunal in 1966 and  inspection  notes were  prepared  on  5.9.66.   The  petitioner  died  pending proceedings  before  the  Tribunal and the  appellants  were brought  on  record  in his place.  The  Tribunal  had  also issued  notice  to the State of Punjab The Tribunal, in  its award,  went into the history of the Gurudwara from the time of Bhai Rup Chand as chronicled in Macauliff’s Sikh Religion (Vol.41  pp.149-151) as to how upon the advice of the  Sixth Guru,  Guru  Govind Singh, Bhai Rup Chand ( the ancestor  of the  appellants  ) left the village Tukland and founded  the new  village  Rupa.   The Guru directed him to  establish  a congregation  in  village Rupa and asked him to spread  Guru Nanak’s  doctrines.   He  also directed that  a  KItchen  be established  for the Sikh devotees.  At pages 152-153, it is stated  that this Gurudwara was built by Bhai Rupa Chand and his  father, to commemorate the visit of the 6th Guru.   The guru  laid foundation of the village on Baisakh Sambat 1688. The  Tribunal  also referred to Siri Gurpartap Suraj  Granth (known  as  Suraj  Prakash) at pp.  3129 to 3134 &  3139  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

3133,  vol.   9  Ch  II)  written  by  Bhai  Santokh  Singh. Reference  was  made to Encyclopedia of Sikh  Literature  by Bhai  Khan  Singh at p.783.  The petitioner, Arjan Singh  as PW6  made various admissions in his cross-examination.   The Tribunal  referred  to Ex.  P6, (copy of Robkar  of  Regency Council,  Nabte)  dated  27 Har Sambat,  1937B.K.   in  File No.1487,  Ex.   P8 (Copy of extract from Register of  Maufis pertaining  to village Rupa, Exs.  P12 to P13 the  certified copies  of  the mutations 445 and 3464, Ex.  P14 extract  of Jamabandi  for 1952-53 of the village, Ex.  P15 Fard Intkhab for  1952-53,  Ex.  P16 and P17 being Jambandhis for  Sambat 1984-85  of the village, and to Ex.  P18 copy of  Jambandhis for  Sambat  1962.   The  Tribunal   held  that  indeed  the petitioner’s  predecessors-in-interest  were the Mahants  of the Gurudwara and that the petitioner’s case to the contrary was  false.   Ex.   R2 the pedigree included  the  names  of Dargah Singh and Prem Singh described as Mahant Gadi Nashin. Ex.   R3  is a copy of the Tehquiquate Abadi, Ex.  R4  is  a copy of Joint statement of Bhai Dargah Singh and others, Ex. R5  is  a copy of the Ishare Lambardarn dt.  16 Har  Sambat, 1941,  Ex.  R6 is a copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar attached to Maufi file No.  16 of Rupa Village.  Ex.  R7 and R8  relate to the Maufi and Ex.  R8 is a report of the Asst. Settlement  Officer, Ex.  R9 copy of pedigree, and Ex.  R-10 copy  of  Jamabandi  of 1962-63, Ex.  R11 of  1952-53.   The Tribunal  on  the  above  evidence  held  that  petitioner’s ancestors were Mahants of the Gurudwara, that the Langar was also  built at the direction of the guru and was an integral part  of the Gurudwara, and that the Langar was mentioned in every  document  immediately  after  any  reference  to  the Gurudwara.   It  observed that the Gurudwara and the  Langar formed an integral unit.  It observed:

     "There  is  unanimity of opinion among the  historians that  the Sikh Gurus made the Langar an integral institution of  the  Sikh Church by insisting that any one high or  low, who   wanted  to  see  them   had  first  to  accept  Guru’s hospitality by casting with his disciples in one row."

     The  Tribunal then observed that the mere  description of  the  Langar  as owner in the revenue records was  of  no help.  It said:

     "The  mere fact that the land in dispute is entered in the  revenue papers in the column of ownership as  belonging to  the Langar does not in any way establish that the Langar Ji Sahib was an independent separate entity."

     The  Tribunal  further held that the Abadi  intervened between  the  Gurudwara  and  the Langar  building  was  not correct.   Exs.  P10, P11, P19, P20 did not support any such contention.   On  the other hand, it held that the wall  was built  by Bhai Arjan Singh separating the Gurudwara and  the Langar.  It observed:

     "These  entries clearly indicated that the Langar  and the  Gurudwara  were located in one and the same number  and that  this  Langar had nothing to do with the house  of  the then  Mahant  Dargah Singh which was admittedly  situate  in No.148."

     The  brick  wall was put up in between the  two,  much later,  sometime in 1960 by the appellants while  previously there  was passage from which one could reach the  Gurudwara

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

from  the  Langar.  The Tribunal held that a claim could  be made  under  section  5(1)  claiming  property  as  personal property  and  not necessarily as a trustee.   The  Tribunal also observed:  "The object of the grant of the land and the Maufis  had everything to do with the running of the  Langar in  perpetuity in the said Gurudwara." It accepted that land which  in the revenue records was registered in the names of the  appellants  could  not be treated as  property  of  the Langar  Ji  or  the  Gurudwara  but  that  other  properties belonged  to  the  Gurudwara.  In the result,  the  Tribunal allowed  the  petition  in part and dismissed  it  in  other respects, holding as follows:

     "In  view  of the discussion above, we hold  that  the petitioner  has failed to prove that the property in dispute vests  in him in any of his personal right or capacity.   We further  give  a declaration that the building mentioned  in Part No.1 and Part No.4 of the Notification No.162-GP, dated 19.1.1962  of which the plans appears at pages 25, 27 and 29 of the said notification and the agricultural land specified in  terms 1 to 12 of part No.2 entered in the revenue record as being owned by Langar Ji Sahib of which details are given at  pages  223  to 266 of the said Gazette,  belong  to  the notified  Gurudwara abovementioned and vest in its as  such. This declaration will, however, not apply to the residential house  of deceased Mahant Arjan Singh shown towards the west in  the plan of the Gurudwara building at page 25, nor  this declaration  will  extend  to the agricultural  land,  which stood  in the personal names of Bhai Arjan singh  (deceased) and  other  share holders at the time of the publication  of the  said Notification.  The Muafi claimed in Part No.3 also vests in the notified Gurudwara."

     The  petition  was disposed of accordingly.   It  will thus be seen that in respect of land, said to be one half of the  agricultural land, which stood in the personal names of Bhai  Arjan Singh and other shareholders at the time of  the notification,  it was held that it cannot be covered by  the declaration  of  title in favour of the Gurudwara under  the notification.

     Appeal  was preferred to the High Court by Bhai  Arjan Singh’s  heirs for an order in respect of the balance of the land  or  property.   But  no appeal was  preferred  by  the Gurudwara.   The  Tribunal’s  findings   were  affirmed,  on appeal,  by  the  High  Court and the appeal  filed  by  the appellants  was dismissed.  It is against this judgment that this  appeal, by special leave, has been preferred.  In this appeal,  it was contended by the learned senior counsel  for the  legal heirs of Bhai Arjan Singh Sri P.C.  Jain that the property  which  was shown in the Jamabandi in the  name  of Langar  Ji  must  also be declared as not belonging  to  the Gurudwara.   It  was  contended  that  the  Langar  and  the Gurudwara  were independent entities and what was registered in  the name of the former could not be treated as belonging to  the  Gurudwara  merely  by   placing  reliance  on   the historical background of the case.  There was no material to treat  the  Langar Ji as an integral part of the  Gurudwara. The  Langar was independently established by Bhai Rup chand, the  original founder and his successors and the  appellants should therefore be allowed to use that property as trustees of the Langar Ji.

     On  the  other hand, Sri Hardev Singh, learned  senior counsel  for  the Gurudwara contended that the Tribunal  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  High  Court  rightly  held that the Langar  Ji  was  an integral  part  of  the Gurudwara and  that  the  properties standing  in the name of the Langar Ji were rightly  treated as  the  properties of the Gurudwara and notified  as  such. There  was  ample  evidence  in   this  behalf  apart   from admissions  of  the appellant’s ancestors.  The point  that, therefore,  arises  for  consideration   is:   whether   the findings  of the Tribunal and the High court that the Langar Ji  was  part  and  parcel of the  Gurudwara  and  that  the properties standing in the name of the Langar Ji belonged to the  Gurudwara are correct?  At the outset, we may point out that  normally,  in  exercise of this  Court’s  Jurisdiction under  Article 136 findings of fact concurrently arrived  at by  the  Tribunal and the High Court will not be  interfered with  by this Court unless there is a clear error of law  or unless  some  important  evidence   has  been  omitted  from consideration.   In  the  case before us, the Award  of  the Tribunal  was  passed  by  a panel of Members  of  whom  the President was a retired Judge of the High Court (Sri Justice Gurdev  Singh) and another was a senior bureaucrat (Sri  Dev Raj  Saini,  P.C.S.).  then was a third member Sri  Joginder Singh  Rekhi.   We  have already referred  to  the  evidence relied  upon  by the Tribunal and those findings  have  been affirmed by the High Court.

     Before  referring to the evidence, we have to refer to the  broad  shift  in the stand of the appellants  by  their learned senior counsel who appeared before us.  The stand is in  sharp  contrast to the pleading of the  petitioner  Bhai Arjan  Singh before the Tribunal and their case in the  High Court.   While  in the petition, Bhai Arjan  Singh  asserted that  none  of his predecessors had any connection with  the Gurudwara,  it  was conceded before us and rightly  so  that they  did  have  connection with the Gurudwara  but  it  was contended  that that would make no difference.  In our view, once  this  concession  is made - and rightly  made  on  the available  material  that the appellants’ predecessors  were Mahants  of the Gurudwara, the appellants’ case gets totally weakened.  We shall elaborate this aspect.  If Rup Chand and his  successors  have  admittedly acted as  Mahants  of  the Gurudwara  and  when it is accepted that Rup Chand  and  his successors  established  the Gurudwara and the  Langar  (the kitchen)  at  the direction of the Sixth Guru, it is  to  be prima  facie accepted that,- placed in a fiduciary  position as  they  were,- it requires very strong evidence  to  prove that they kept or intended to keep the Langar, (the kitchen) as a separate unit distinct from the Gurudwara.  It requires strong  proof  that while the Gurudwara was meant for  those who  followed the tenets of Sikhism, the Langar which was so near  to  the Gurudwara was constructed not exclusively  for the Sikh community but was meant for all and sundry.  In our view,  if the Langar was constructed simultaneously with the Gurudwara  or  within reasonable proximity in point of  time with  the Gurudwara, - as directed by Guru Govind Singh, the Sixty  Guru - a strong presumption arises that it was  meant only for the devotees who would attend the Gurudwara and was not  meant  to  be an independent unit for catering  to  the needs  of all communities, - and not merely confined to  the Sikh  Community.  In our view, there is no evidence to  show that  the  founders contemplated two separate entities,  the Gurudwara  for  the Sikhs and the Langar for  everybodyelse. Further,  once the appellant’s counsel is compelled to  give up the plea that those who managed the Langar Ji had nothing to  do  with those who managed the Gurudwara, the basis  for treating  the Langar Ji and its properties as separate  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

the  Gurudwara becomes completely shaken.  There is one more basic  flaw  in the appellant’s contention.  The  appellants have  already succeeded before the Tribunal to the extent of a  large  chunk  of the agricultural  property  standing  in revenue  accounts in their personal names.  This is said  to be  almost  one half.  Now the appellants want to claim  the balance  of  the  property  as  having  been  owned  by  the LangarJi,  and  they want to claim that land as trustees  of the  Langar Ji.  The result would be that the Gurudwara, the main  Trust,  would  be  left   with  no  agricultural  land whatsoever for its upkeep.  In our view, the founders of the Gurudwara  and  their  successors Mahants would  never  have intended  to acquire all the property for the Langar Ji  and none  for the Gurudwara.  In fact, the registration of  some lands in the personal names of the trustees is a very recent event.  Be that as it may, that part of the Tribunal’s Award has  now  become  final.  But so far as the balance  of  the property  is  concerned, if the appellant now  accepts  that those  who  managed the Gurudwara and those who managed  the Langar  Ji  were the same persons for  several  generations, then  the  case  of  the appellant that  the  same  trustees acquired  distinct  properties for separate trusts  requires very  strong  evidence  particularly when, as  a  matter  of history and custom, every Gurudwara establishes a kitchen to serve  those devotees who come to the Gurudwara for  worship and who stay over.  At one stage, learned senior counsel for appellants  wanted  to contend that LangarJi was  a  private Trust  and not a public trust but this contention was  given up.   Such  a plea would be totally unacceptable in view  of the  admissions in the petition itself that the kitchen  was to  serve the community at large.  The limited plea was that the Langar was not confined to those who go to the Gurudwara but  the  kitchen  was open to all and that it  was  not  an appendage  of the Gurudwara.  Having referred to the serious weaknesses  of the case of the appellants, we shall  briefly refer  to  the  material on which the findings  against  the appellants  are  based.   We shall first refer to  the  oral evidence.  The petitioner (Bhai Arjan Singh) admitted in his cross-  examination that the village Rupa was founded by Rup Chand  at the direction of the 6th Guru, and that thereafter the  Gurudwara  was constructed.  This admission is in  fact contrary  to  what PWs1 to 5 stated.  They asserted  on  the other hand that the kitchen was started not at the direction of  the 6th Guru but was started independently by the  heirs of  Rup  chand,  - Prem Singh & Mahant Singh.  It  was  also admitted  by  PW 6that the 6th Guru desired Bhai  Rup  Chand should  start  a free kitchen.  PW-6 stated that only  ‘some land’  was set apart for the kitchen (But now be says entire land is divided between the kitchen and the family and there is nothing for the Gurudwara).  PW-6 admitted he was running the  kitchen  for over 50 years but was not maintaining  any accounts  of the income from the land attached to Langar  Ji Sahib.   He  admitted that the 6th Guru appointed  Bhai  Rup Chand as Mahant of the Gurudwara.

     The  witnesses  for the Gurudwara RWs 1 to  10  stated that  the Gurudwara and the Langar Ji were being run by  the same  persons  as  one unit al along.  Only  about  5  years earlier  (i.e.   1960) a wall was constructed by Bhai  Arjan Singh  to separate the Gurudwara from the Langar Ji.  Coming to  the documentary evidence, the strong evidence  contained in  the  books  of history, particularly,  Macauliff’s  work which  shows  that  both the Gurudwara and the  Langar  were built almost simultaneously at the behest of the Sixth Guru, goes  against  the appellants.  The Gurupratap Suraj  Granth

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

also supports this view.  These documents totally go against the appellants’ case.

     The  appellant has placed reliance on Ex.  P2 (Revenue decision  of13 Kartak 1970 Samvat) regarding the mutation of the  Maufi  as  divided into shares.  (Now, it  is  admitted Maufi  was  resumed in 1957).  Ex.P3 also relates to  Maufi. Ex.P4 is an order with regard to Abadi of Rupa village.  Ex. P6  is  the order in a suit for share of crop of  the  Maufi land  (of  course described as Dharam  Arth.)(translated  as Religious  purpose).   It  shows the land was  divided  into three  shares  one for plaintiff(Mahtab Singh), another  for defendant  (Prem Singh) and a third share to Langar Ji (free kitchen).   Prem Singh, defendant, brother of plaintiff, was described  as  Sajde  Nashin  (holding  of  office)  and  as managing  the  Langar.  Ex.  P7 is the copy of the  Register Maufiat.   It states that the Muafi was permanently  granted by  the Minister "till the Langar is in existence".  Ex.  P8 is  the  copy of Muafi, column 8 states that the holders  of the  Maufi are Bhai Ka, children of Bhai Rup Chand.   Col.11 refers  to  the remarks of the Asst.  Steelement  Officer  - that  Maufi  was  given to the children of Bhai  Rup  Chand. Column  12  refers to Dharam Arth,(Religious  purpose).   It reads:

     "Maufi is for Dharam Arth.  and for Langar Sahib."

     In  our view, Col.  12 of Ex.  P8 cuts at the case  of the  appellants  for  it describes that the Maufi  land  was granted  conjointly  for  religious  purposes  as  also  for purposes  of the kitchen.  Two points emerge from Ex.   P-8, one  that  the Gurudwara and the Langar were treated as  one unit  and  that  the  Maufi  was  granted  jointly  for  the religious   purposes   of   the   Gurudwara  and   for   the religious-cum-charitable  purpose  of  the   Langar  Ji  for feeding  the devotees who visit the Gurudwara for  religious purposes.   Col.13  says the Maufi is permanent  for  Dharam Arth.(religious  purpose) and that the Langar is still being run.   Ex.   P9 is an order relating to a dispute  with  the State  of  Nabhas.  Ex.  P11 is the Khasra, Ex.  P12 is  the Mutation  register shows lands registered in name of  Langar Ji  as owner and referred to the possession of the heirs  of those who died.  But curiously, in Ex.  P13, in the column 4 relating  to the name of the owner, Langar Ji is omitted and the  shares of the shareholders-appellant’s predecessors are mentioned,  while  the  cultivator’s column 5  is  shown  as Langar  Ji.  Col.9 relating to owners says cultivation is by Langar  Ji.  Ex.P14 is the Fared Inttakeb and shows the name of  owner of Langar Ji.  Col.  5 shows Maufi property is  in possession  of owner.  It says in the Jamabandi of  1952-53, that  the  shares are divided between the Langar Ji &  Arjan Singh  equally.   Ex.   P15  is   the  Fared  Inthekhab  and describes  the  owners  as  Narain   Singh  etc.   while  it describes  Langar  Ji  as  cultivator.    Ex.   P16  is  the Jamabandi  of 1984-85 Samat and shows the name of Jang Singh as  owner  and  Langar Ji as cultivator.  Ex.   P18  is  the Jamabandi  of  Samat  1962, shows Jang singh  as  owner  and Langar  Ji as cultivator.  Ex.  P20 is Khasra giving details of  the  locations.   Thus,  Ex.P-8  runs  contrary  to  the appellants’  case while the other documents are inconsistent with Ex.P-8 and also inconsistent with each other.  We shall next  refer  to  the  documents produced on  behalf  of  the Gurudwara.   Ex.   R2  extract  of  file  453  contains  the decision dt.  20 Katik Sambat 1941 BK.  In that the pedigree was  given  and  Bhai Dargah Singh, son of  Prem  Singh  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

described  as  Mahant  Gaddi  Nashin  &  Bhai  Dargah  Singh admitted  that  he was himself the Mahant Gaddi Nashin.   He also  "admitted that the Sarkarwale and built a Gurudwara in commemoration  of  the visit of the 6th Guru",  Guru  Gobind Sahib and that he was the Mahant of the Langar.  Ex.  R3 the Tehquiquate  Abadi shows that the Gurudwara was built by Rup Chand at the behest of the Sixth Guru and Bhai Rup Chand was the  Mahant.   Ex.  R4 is a joint statement of  Bhai  Dargah Singh  & others in file No.453 and there it is admitted that the

     "Sixth  Guru came to village Bhai Rupa for the  second time  after the village was founded and stayed for 2  month, at the place when there is a Dharamshala of the Langer."

     Ex.   R5  is the copy of the Ishare  Lambardarn  dated 1941  and it shows that all the four Lambardarns stated that the  Guru  appointed  Bhai  Rup Chand as  a  Mahant  of  the Gurudwara  and the entire land in the village went into  his possession.  Ex.  R6 relates to the Maufi and states that it relates to the LangarJi of which Arjan Singh was Mahant, the grant  was conditional upon the existence of the Langar  Ji. Maufi  is started in Col.12 to be for Dharam Arth.  Ex.   R9 is  a  pedigree  showing Arjan Singh as  Mahant.   Ex.   R10 Jamabandi  to  1962-63 showed Langar Ji as owner.  Ex.   R11 Jamabandi to 1952-53 showed LangarJi as owner of 1/2 through Mahant.   Ex.  R12 shows LangarJi as owner.  Thus, the above material  produced  by the respondents and,  in  particular, Macauliff’s Sikh Religion (Vol.4, PP.149-151) prove that the plea  in the petition that the ancestors of petitioner (i.e. upto Rup Chand) had no connection with Gurudwara was totally false  and that the village was founded by Rup Chand,that at the  direction  of the Sixth Guru, the Gurudwara was  built, then  a  Dharamshala  and  Langar were  also  built  at  his direction.   In  his second visit, the Sixth Guru  came  and stayed  in  the  Dharamshala for two  months.   These  facts clinchingly establish that the Gurudwara and the Langar came up  almost  contemporaneously and the same persons  were  in Management  of both as Mahants for several generations.  The only  inference that could then be drawn would be that  they both  formed  part  of  single unit and  it  was  never  the intention  of  the Sixth Guru or of Bhai Rup Chand that  the Gurudwara  and the Langar should be different entities.   It was  never their intention that each should have a  separate Mahant  -  or  each  should have separate  lands  for  their respective  purposes.   Evidence also proves that the  Maufi was  also  a  grant  to  the   Langar  Ji  and  not  to  any individuals.

     It  is  true  that in revenue accounts,  the  land  is described  as  belonging  to Langar ji or is shown  as  sub- divided  but  once  it is established that  Langarji  is  an appendage of the Gurudwara, then all these lands standing in the  name  of Langar Ji must be treated as coming under  the purview  of the Act.  The evidence also shows that somewhere recently  in 1960, Bhai Arjan Singh built a wall and  closed the  Arch  through  which  devotees   were  going  from  the Gurudwara  to  the  Langar.  In our view, the  Tribunal  was right when it held as follows:

     "The  reason  for claiming the Langar alone  is  quite obvious.   It  appears  that as land in  dispute  throughout stood  in the name of Langar ji Saheb in the revenue papers, the  petitioner thought it expedient to claim the same  with the motive of appropriating its income and produce.  In view

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

of  the historical importance of the notified Sikh Gurudwara in  question,  it cannot be imagined that the same could  be without  an institution of the Langar which is so  essential for such importance places of homage."

     For  the aforesaid reasons, we are clearly of the view that the award of the Tribunal was based on ample material - historical  as well as other documentary and oral  evidence. No  relevant  document was left out of  consideration.   The High  Court  was  right in affirming the award.   There  are absolutely  no  merits  in the appeals.   Both  appeals  are dismissed.   Civil Appeal No.1921 of 1984 is dismissed  with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.