JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J.:-By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of the present appeal and also F.A.O. No. 288 of 1975 as both of them involve identical questions of law and facts and both of them were filed against a common impugned order, besides being related to the same property. 2. Against the decision rendered by Sikh Gurudwaras Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) on 15.7.1975 in petition Nos. 183 and 185 of 1963 filed under Section 5(1) of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Principal Act’) the appellant filed the present appeal and F.A.O. No. 288 of 1975, respectively. The same were heard by a Division Bench of this Court. On 4.12.1992, the Hon’ble Judges comprising the Division Bench delivered their respective judgments and there was difference of opinion between them. Accordingly, the papers were placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice and the appeals were then listed before this Bench for disposal. 3. The facts giving rise to the appeals are that Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at Dhamtan Tehsil Narwana District Sangrur, along with Bunga Dhamtanian situated near Railway Station, Patiala, was included at serial No. 314 of Schedule-I of the Principal Act as amended by Act No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Amendment Act’) and Act No. 10 of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Second Amendment Act’). On 10.2.1961, notification was published by the State Government, whereby the consolidated list of rights, titles and interests, claimed to belong to the Sikh Gurudwara under Section 3 (2) of the Principal Act, was published. Against the said notification, Gurmukh Singh, Chela Mahant Aggar Singh of Patiala, filed two separate petitions bearing Nos. 183 and 185 of 1963. As both the petitions related to the same property, the Tribunal disposed both of them by passing the impugned order. 4. In his petitions filed before the learned Tribunal, the appellant pleaded that the institution situated near Railway Station, Patiala was not Bunga Dhamtanian and also not connected with Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at Dhamtan. The institution situated near Railway Station, Patiala was only Samadhan and Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala. Said Sardar Deva Singh was the President of Council of Regency during the minority of Maharaja Rajinder Singh of erstwhile State of Patiala. The institution situated near Railway Station, Patiala was only Samadhan and Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala. Said Sardar Deva Singh was the President of Council of Regency during the minority of Maharaja Rajinder Singh of erstwhile State of Patiala. He had earmarked about 50 bighas of his personal land situated near Railway Station, Patiala for the smadhs of the dead persons of his family. Sri Guru Granth Sahib was recited for the peace of the departed souls in one of the rooms of building constructed opposite to the Railway Station, Patiala, which was also used for the convenience and stay of the travellers. The institution remained privately owned and managed by Mahant Aggar Singh. Even mutation of the land and the property was sanctioned in his name. He used to remain at Dhamtan, whereas management at Patiala was entrusted to Mahant Gurmukh Singh since his childhood, being Chela of Mahant Aggar Singh. After the death of Mahant Aggar Singh, mutation was sanctioned in favour of Mahant Gurmukh Singh. As such the institution never came under the management of Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib. As Mahant Gurmukh Singh-appellant was in possession thereof as Mahant and Mohtmim and the institution near Railway Station, Patiala was in no way attached to Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib, therefore, it was not a Sikh Gurudwara. 5. Per contra, the stand of S.G.P.C. before the learned Tribunal was that Mahant Gurmukh Singh had failed to challenge the existence of Bunga Dhamtanian, also known as Gurudwara Deva Singhwala. In fact, Muafi and Rasad were given to the disputed Bunga, as it was part and parcel of Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at Dhamtan. Disputed property did not belong to any individual and always remained under the management of Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib, which was being managed by the Committee under the supervision of the management of Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib. The mutation in the name of the Committee for management was also entered. Therefore, Bunga Dhamtanian, known by the name of Gurudwara Deva Singhwala has rightly been declared as Sikh Gurudwara and both the petitions filed by Mahant Gurmukh Singh were liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned Tribunal after going through the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: “(1) What right, title or interest, if any, has the petitioner in the property in dispute? OPP. (2) What right, title or interest, if any, has the notified Gurudwara concerned in the property in dispute?OPR.” 7. 6. Learned Tribunal after going through the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues: “(1) What right, title or interest, if any, has the petitioner in the property in dispute? OPP. (2) What right, title or interest, if any, has the notified Gurudwara concerned in the property in dispute?OPR.” 7. After going through the evidence led by the parties and their pleadings, learned Tribunal held that Mahant Gurmukh Singh had no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. It was also held that the notified Sikh Gurudwara was legally entitled to get payment of compensation amount, which had already been received by the appellant from the authority. Regarding the remaining 10 bighas of land, it was held that the notified Sikh Gurudwara was entitled to the possession of the same without any encumbrance or charge. Holding that notified Sikh Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian, also known by the name of Gurudwara Deva Singhwala, situated near Railway Station, Patiala, was the owner of the Gurudwara Sahib and also the land measuring 36 bighas 11 biswas situated in Misri Bazar, Patiala in the notification dated 10.2.1961, learned Tribunal dismissed both the petitions filed by the appellant under Section 5(1) of the Principal Act. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance perused the entire record. 9. Vide Item No. 314 in Schedule-A of First Amendment Act, Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at Dhamtan was included in the list of Sikh Gurudwaras. The Principal Act was again amended by Second Amendment Act which provided for making minor corrections in the description of certain Gurudwaras, included in Schedule-l to the Act. The entry at serial No. 314 was corrected so as to specify Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at Dhamtan along with Bunga Dhamtanian near Railway Station, Patiala. On 10.2.1961, the Government of Punjab issued a notification in pursuance of Section 3 (2) of the Principal Act regarding consolidated list of rights, titles and interests belonging to the Sikh Gurudwara so as to specify the number and date of notification declaring Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi along with Bunga Dhamtanian near Railway Station, Patiala to be a Sikh Gurudwara. This was followed by an identical notification issued under Section 5 (3) of the Principal Act on 4.2.1963. This was followed by an identical notification issued under Section 5 (3) of the Principal Act on 4.2.1963. The combined reading of both the notifications would show that Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi at village Dhamtan and Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian, also known as Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala, near Railwa Station, Patiala were grouped together notified Gurudwaras. The immoveable property attached with Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian, also known as Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala was shown situated in khasra No. 867, while the immoveable property belonging to the said Gurudwara specified at serial Nos. 6 to 12 of Padat No.4 appearing at pages No. 443 to 447 of Notification, which related to the buildings, shops and houses attached thereto. Once notification under Section 5(3) of the Principal Act had been issued, it was conclusive proof of the fact that no such claim under Section 5(1) of the Principal Act was made in respect of any rights, titles or interests in any property included in the consolidated list published under Section 3(2) of the said Act except a right, title or interest in the Gurudwara itself. Therefore, the appellant could not be heard saying that he had any claim in the building of Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian. 10. Mere addition of the word “Samadhan” to the property in dispute will not mean that it remained a private property which had been set up by Sardar Deva Singh for the purposes of the samadhs of the dead persons of his family. The property is clearly described to be Bunga Dhamtanian and Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala. If we have a look at the record pertaining to Muafi of land revenue, mutation Ex. P.1 and Roznamcha of Deorhi Mualla Ex. P. 3 they clearly describe the institution as Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala, while Gurmukh Singh looking after its affairs as a Mohtmim. In the aforementioned documents, there no mention of the smadh of the family members of Sardar Deva Singh. There are some Court decisions also available in the record. First one is the judgment in Civil Suit passed on 10.12.1960 by learned Civil Judge I Class, Patiala and the other is the judgment dated 20.9.1960 of this Court, which are Exs. P.11 and P.15, respectively, wherein the institution was clearly described as Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian near Railway Station, Patiala. In the latter judgment, Gurmukh Singh appellant was also a party. Similarly, lease deeds Exs. P.11 and P.15, respectively, wherein the institution was clearly described as Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian near Railway Station, Patiala. In the latter judgment, Gurmukh Singh appellant was also a party. Similarly, lease deeds Exs. PW7/1 and PW7/2, order dated 15.5.1956 Ex. P.9 passed by Assistant Collector, Patiala and order dated 14.7.1959, Ex. P.10 sanctioning mutation No. 4168 of the property in dispute describe the institution as “Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala at Patiala” and Gurmukh Singh as its Mohtmim. Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala was also shown situated in khasra No. 867 and land comprised in khasra Nos. 890 and 891 being owned by the said Gurudwara under the management of Gurmukh Singh as its Mohtmim find mention in Missal Haquiat Ex. P.18. Similar is the position in the Muafi concerning the aforementioned institution and its attached property. Along with notification dated 10.2.1961, a site plan was published wherein the institution is described as Gurudwara Sahib Bunga Dhamtanian (Maroof Gurudwara Deva Singhwala) near Railway Station, Patiala. From the above it is clear that the institution in question is Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian, situated near Railway Station, Patiala, which is also known as Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala. 11. On 12.3.1953, an award was passed by learned Collector, Patiala in respect of 11 bighas 4 biswas of land together with land belonging to other land owners. It pertained to the acquisition of the aforementioned land for construction of new Power House and bungalows at Patiala. The compensation was assessed in respect of the land of the Gurudwara. Later on, learned Collector ordered that the amount of compensation be paid to Mahant Gurmukh Singh for construction of shops. The latter order was challenged by S.G.P.C. by filing a writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The said decision was then challenged by the S.G.P.C. by filing an appeal, i.e., L.P.A. No. 354 of 1960 which came to be decided on 19.12.1963. The latter order passed by learned Collector was quashed and the matter was referred to the learned District Judge for determination as to the entitlement in respect of the payment of compensation. Accordingly, learned District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 21.8.1982 held that it was S.G.P.C., which was entitled to the amount of compensation. The present appellant was a party in all the aforementioned proceedings. The final order passed by learned District Judge, Patiala was never challenged by him. Accordingly, learned District Judge, Patiala vide order dated 21.8.1982 held that it was S.G.P.C., which was entitled to the amount of compensation. The present appellant was a party in all the aforementioned proceedings. The final order passed by learned District Judge, Patiala was never challenged by him. It is another indication of the fact that the institution in question was Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian Sahib @ Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala, situated near Railway Station, Patiala and thus, a Sikh Gurudwara. 12. On 23.12.1946 notification No. 55 Ex. P.3 was issued vide which interim Committee for Management of Sikh Gurudwaras in erstwhile State of Patiala was appointed in pursuance of Ijlas-i-khas No. 52 dated 8.11.1946 by Maharaja Patiala by way of Firman Shahi. A perusal of the same would show that Bunga Dhamtanian at Patiala was part and parcel of the main Sikh Gurudwara at Dhamtanian. After the Constitution of India carne into force, the Firman of the Maharaja, which was at the relevant time the law of the State, came to be the force of law in view of the provisions of Article 372. Mere fact that the appellant remained in its possession was no ground to hold that he acquired any vested right when the-right of management earlier vested in the interim Committee and later on replaced by the S.G.P.C. After the death of Mahant Aggar Singh, the Maharaja of Patiala passed an order Ex.R.17, whereby the management of historic shrine, namely, Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib, came under the direct control of the Deorhi Department and so also of Gurudwara Sahib, near Railway Station Patiala (Gurudwara Deva Singhwala @ Dhantanian), being branch of the main Gurudwara. On 23.2.1997 B.K. an order Ex. R.19 was made in the file of the Deorhi Department to the aforementioned effect. An application Ex. R.20 was filed by Harnam Singh, who had been serving in the Gurudwara Sahib wherein he described the institution as Gurudwara Dhamtanian, near Railway Station and Gurudwara Sahib near Railway Station. Even a sum of Rs.140/- was sought to be deposited by Manager of Gurudwara at Dhamtanian in the State Treasury as lease money of Gurudwara Sahib near Railway Station by making an application Ex. R.18. 13. As per pedigree table Ex. R.12, Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala was Ba-ihtman Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib Ba-ihtman Mahant Aggar Singh Chela Partap Singh. Even a sum of Rs.140/- was sought to be deposited by Manager of Gurudwara at Dhamtanian in the State Treasury as lease money of Gurudwara Sahib near Railway Station by making an application Ex. R.18. 13. As per pedigree table Ex. R.12, Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala was Ba-ihtman Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib Ba-ihtman Mahant Aggar Singh Chela Partap Singh. The said pedigree table showed that Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala at Patiala was also managed by Mohtmims. Exs. R.13 and R.14 are the jamabandies, whereas Exs. R.15, R.21 and R. 23 are the extracts from the registers pertaining to Muafi. In all of them, the institution in question is shown under the Management of Mahant Aggar Singh. Evidence is also available on the file to establish that the land for the institution in question was donated by Maharaj Rajinder Singh to the Gurudwara which was under the Management of Mahant Aggar Singh of Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib, he being its Muafidar. We have also the statements of Ran Singh and Kirpa Singh recorded during the proceedings for remission of land revenue, from which it could be inferred that Gurudwara Sardar Deva Singhwala, near Railway Station, Patiala was connected wilh the main Gurudwara at Dhamtan Sahib. 14. On the other hand, the appellant has based his claim on the testimonies of Anand Sarup Singh PW.1, Bibi Gurdev Kaur PW.2, Jaswant Kaur PW.3, Chinta Singh PW.4, Siri Ram PW.5, Mehar Singh PW.6 and that of his own as PW.7 to contend that the institution in question had no connection with Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib and, in fact, it was only used for the smadhs of the family of Sardar Deva Singh. However, in his cross-examination, the appellant himself admitted that he was appointed as Mahant by the family members of Sardar Deva Singh after the death of Bishan Singh and then his appointment was approved from Deorhi Muala. He also stated that the Deorhi Muala of erstwhile Pepsu State was managing Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib as it was managing all other Gurudwaras. The institution of Sardar Deva Singh used to get the Rasad from the Deorhi Muala so as to run the langar. Finally he had to admit that he himself was sent by the Deorhi Muala from Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib to the institution in question. 15. The institution of Sardar Deva Singh used to get the Rasad from the Deorhi Muala so as to run the langar. Finally he had to admit that he himself was sent by the Deorhi Muala from Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib to the institution in question. 15. From the above, it is clear that no reliance on the testimony of the appellant as PW.7 could be placed when he stated that Bunga Dhamtania, and also known as Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala is an entity, independent from Gurudwara Dhamtan Sahib. The self serving statements of Gurdev Kaur and Jaswant Kaur, widows of Kuldeep Singh son of late Sardar Deva Singh, cannot be made use of so as to accept the case of the appellant. 16. However, there is ample evidence available on the file which establishes that two Gurudwaras, namely, Gurudwara Padshahi Naumi, Dhamtan and Gurudwara Bunga Dhamtanian, also known as Gurudwara Sahib Sardar Deva Singhwala, near Railway Station, Patiala are inter-connected and therefore, Sikh Gurudwaras; rights, titles and interests, wherein vested in S.G.P.C. Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order was justmea in holding, accordingly. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in both the appeals, which are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, no orders are required to be passed in the miscellaneous applications. —————————