Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1052 (PNJ)

Amran Khan v. Dilbag Mohammad

2022-05-27

FATEH DEEP SINGH

body2022
JUDGMENT Fateh Deep Singh, J. - A popular holy shrine known as 'Holy Khangah of Baba Budhan Shah Ji' (in short, 'the shrine') situated in Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar (Punjab) which was earlier managed by Dildar Mohammad son of Ibrahim alias Gulzar (since deceased). Consequent upon the death of Dildar Mohammad, his heirs, all claimants comprising of plaintiff Amran Khan (being son) on one hand while on the other Rani (being widow), Dilbag Mohammad, Iqbal Mohammad, Sharif Mohammad, Gafoor Mohammad (being collaterals) and Amitaj (being son) have all laid claim to the share of the proceeds of offerings made at the shrine and over the properties attached to it. It is as a consequence of this wrangling between the progenies' claims, a suit for declaration has been sought over right to these offerings and wherein a registered Will dated 31.12.1993 of one Ibrahim alias Gulzar was also sought to be put forth to strengthen the claim by some of the disputants. 2. During the pendency of the suit, while adjudicating on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Camp Court, Sri Anandpur Sahib vide orders dated 11.12.2018 disposed off the stay application while observing as follows:- "8. 2. During the pendency of the suit, while adjudicating on application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Divn.), Camp Court, Sri Anandpur Sahib vide orders dated 11.12.2018 disposed off the stay application while observing as follows:- "8. Meanwhile, Advocate Jaswinder Singh is appointed as receiver/LC and with direction to visit the holy Dargah Baba Budhan Shah Ji at 5:00 PM daily and to examine the total amount and other materials of the offerings per day being offered by the devotees in the said Dargah and to give report regarding the same including the management of affairs of said Dargah at the spot as well as to click the photographs of the same and LC/receiver is further directed to keep the keys of the Golaks of Dargah with him by placing the old locks and the locks should be sealed every day after removing the offering from the Golaks in the presence of parties and similarly the seal of the Golaks shall be removed in presence of both the parties and the receiver/LC further directed to maintain the record of receipt and expenditure of said Dargah and receiver/LC further directed to submit the said record in the Court on every date of hearing and further directed to prepare the proper receipt of payment from the parties as mentioned in the Will dated 31.12.1993, from the offerings and after giving notice to both the parties or their counsels of his visit. Fee of Local Commissioner is assessed as Rs.1200/- per day to be paid equally by parties. However, it is made clear that observations made in this order are without prejudice to the decision of this suit on merits." 3. It is against this very order, the instant Civil Revision petition has come about by one of the claimants, plaintiff Amran Khan. 4. Upon hearing Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1; Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents No.2(i), 4 and 5 and on perusal of the records. 5. 4. Upon hearing Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ripudaman Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1; Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondents No.2(i), 4 and 5 and on perusal of the records. 5. It is admitted stand of the two sides that the shrine follows the tenets of sufism and which way of life and thinking has come about from the well acknowledged revered Guru Nanak Dev and thus has no codified way of practice for which every devotee by his act and conduct symbolizes love for the Almighty. As is there in the pleadings, it is not an estate and property owned by any of the persons and what could one draw an inference is that the holy shrine is there since times historical and immemorial and has been looked after by different persons from time to time who act as Sewadars and out of whom Dildar Mohammad was one of the persons lending his services to the shrine. How or by what means such property of a holy shrine, where admittedly public at large visits in routine to pay obeisance and make offerings, can be claimed to be a personal property which can be bestowed upon at the whims and fancies of executant of a Will, to the mind of this Court is a blatant fraud that is being perpetrated upon the innocent devotees and who out of their reverence visit the shrine, and how or by what means the offerings made at this shrine can be divided amongst the family members of Dildar Mohammad, as has been sought to be put forth in the claim by way of present suit. It needs to be emphasized here that every good act is a charity towards fellow men and encompasses within the domain of virtuous deed and falls within the domain of charity. 6. As has been observed by the seasoned and well acknowledged writer Ruskin Bond, how often it is difficult to be wisely charitable - to do good without multiplying the sources of evil. To give alms is nothing unless you give thought also. It is written, not "blessed is he that feedeth the poor;" but "blessed is he that considereth the poor." A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money. To give alms is nothing unless you give thought also. It is written, not "blessed is he that feedeth the poor;" but "blessed is he that considereth the poor." A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money. 7. Thus from this background and since the plaintiff has come to the Court, a heavy onus lies upon him to establish prima facie before the Court how there is an inherent vested right in the family to seek declaration over distribution of shares of these offerings by the devotees. During the course of hearing arguments, it has been fairly conceded to by learned counsel for the two sides that the entire wealth of the shrine has come from the offerings by the devotees and there is nothing substantial contributed by either the plaintiff or the defendants or their predecessors in interest. Another question that stems out is the very authority of this Court before whom a civil revision has come about in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in 'Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & others' (2003) 6 SCC 675 , which reads as follows:- "24. The difference between Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was well brought out in 'Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai' 1986 Supp SCC 401. Proceedings under Article 226 are in exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court while proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution are not original but only supervisory. Article 227 substantially reproduces the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 excepting that the power of superintendence has been extended by this article to tribunals as well. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. Though the power is akin to that of an ordinary Court of appeal, yet the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the Court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction." 8. The above said provision of the Constitution empowers this Court to exercise its jurisdiction though sparingly and in appropriate cases to prevent grave injustice or failure of justice and therefore, it is well within the competency and jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its jurisdiction by way of a command of writ of certiorari holding supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to ensure that general public is not robbed of their pious offerings at their back by such a machination which has come about by a group of greedy disgruntled litigants in the suit. It would not be out of place to remark here that by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court is capable of exercising on a prayer of a party, supervisory jurisdiction suo motu as well. Even in 'State vs. Navjot Sandhu' NT (2003) 4 SC 605, the Supreme Court has remarked as follows:- "28. (i) the jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be limited or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature; (ii) the supervisory jurisdiction is wide and can be used to meet the ends of justice, also to interfere even with an interlocutory order; (iii) the power must be exercised sparingly, only to keep subordinate courts and tribunals within the bonds of their authority to see that they obey the law. The power is not available to be exercised to correct mere errors (whether on the facts or laws) and also cannot be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise." 9. The power is not available to be exercised to correct mere errors (whether on the facts or laws) and also cannot be exercised "as the cloak of an appeal in disguise." 9. Undisputedly, the parties to this litigation are carrying on public functions catering to the public at large and cannot escape from the domain of exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. To the mind of this Court, power of superintendence it confers is a power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. This Court having regard to the very nature of the functioning of the shrine, its origin and the undisputed fact that the Shrine over a period of time and usage has come to be a public institution for and by the public at large and cannot be allowed to be run by mere muscle power and influence of a particular family who by no means have any locus standi. Drawing analogy from the provisions of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 and ensuring the superintending authority over such a religious endowment is put in place and to divest these so called claimants of any right over the management of the establishment which is purely to usurp this property and its wealth, and that even appointment of a Committee to manage and administer the shrine may fail to achieve the very object in long period of time. It therefore necessitates that directions be issued to the State of Punjab through the concerned Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Secretary that the administration of the shrine should be properly made on lines with the one that was responsible for creating a Durgah Committee under the Durgah Khawaja Saheb Act, 1955 where Durgah of Khawaja Moin-ud-din Chishti generally known as Durgah Khawaja Saheb, Ajmer was constituted and that by another gallant effort the administration, management and governance of Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine was made by Jammu and Kashmir State Legislature by way of enactment of The Jammu and Kashmir Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1988 so that huge wealth that has accumulated and is likely to accumulate over a period of time is put to a suitable use for the welfare of the shrine and the visitors and be not misused by greedy self-propogands who are there only to reap the benefits. The learned Court below though in its endeavour has appointed a Local Commissioner/Receiver of the shrine vide order dated 05.04.2021 but keeping in view likely repercussions that might come about in due course of time, it is necessitated that directions be issued to the State as detailed above to legislate an Act as has been done so in Durgah Khawaja Saheb, Ajmer and Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine by the appropriate Governments so that the authorities who are trying to sleep over such matters for political ends, wake up from their slumber and act to save the innocent disciples and devotees from being fleeced by such false claims and attainments that are being tried to be brought about by such a frivolous suit at the back of the general public. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the State Government through appropriate authority immediately. In the meanwhile, a committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Rupnagar (Ropar) be constituted as per law to run day to day affairs of the shrine and keep account of it. The present petition stands disposed off in those terms.