ORDER
N.K. Agrawal, J.
1. This is an appeal against order dated January 23, 1984, passed by the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal, Punjab (for short, the Tribunal) under Section 32, Punjab Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).
2. Mahant Ram Samp of village Malkana, Tehsil and District Bhatinda, was the owner of certain land. He died on April 22, 1956. After his death, a dispute arose about the immovable properties left behind by him. Court civil suits were filed by the rival parties. In three of the civil suits, it was stated by the plaintiffs that the property in dispute belonged to Dera Sadh Diwana and the ‘Chelas’ of the deceased Mahant were the owners. The fourth suit was instituted by Har Kaur, sister of the deceased Mahant. All the four suits were consolidated by the trial Court and were dismissed. First appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. However, the second appeal (R.S.A. No. 1752 of 1961) filed by Har Kaur was allowed by the High Court on April 27, 1972, holding that the property belonged to Mahant Ram Samp in his own rights and did not vest in the institution of the Dera.
3. A notification under Section 7(3) of the Act was issued in the year 1964 whereby the property in dispute was declared to be property of Gurdwara Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib situated in the revenue estate of Malkana. Two objections were filed before the State Government, which were forwarded to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal, by their is ex-parte order dated July 24, 1975, decided the matter holding that the property belonged to the Gurdwara.
4. A writ petition (C.W.P. No. 1372 of 1981) was filed by the persons, who are appellants in the present appeal. The writ petition was dismissed in limine on the ground that remedy under the Act was not availed by the petitioners. The writ petitioners then filed a petition under Section 30 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers as Secretary to Government of Punjab. The Financial Commissioner framed the issues and referred the matter to the Tribunal under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal, by order dated January 23, 1984, held that the reference was not competent.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the order of the Tribunal is not correct and in accordance with law, because the reference was made by the Financial Commissioner exercising the powers of the highest Revenue Court in the State. The Financial Commissioner was competent to entertain the petition and to submit the case to the Tribunal under Section 30 of the Act, after framing issues. The petition was sent by the Financial Commissioner as a Revenue Court to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Financial Com- missioner, while exercising the powers as a Revenue Court, entertained the petition under Section 30 and framed issues under Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required in law to proceed for deciding the issues. The appellants had gone before the Financial Commissioner with the plea that they were bona fide vendees of the right holders of the land wrongly notified as the property of Sikh Gurdwara and they were not parties before the Tribunal in the earlier proceedings. The decision of the High Court in R.S.A. No. 1752 of 1961 was also to the effect that the property belonged to their predecessor-in-interest, Har Kaur.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, contended that Section 32 of the Act was applicable to a suit or proceeding which was pending in a Civil or Revenue Court and in which it became necessary to decide any claim in connection with a notified property of a Sikh Gurdwara. Since no proceeding was pending before any Revenue Court, the reference made by the Financial Commissioner to the Tribunal was bad in law. The learned counsel has supported the order of the Tribunal with the plea that the petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was not at all in the nature of a pending suit or a proceeding before a Revenue Court. Admittedly, the appellants had put forward their claim before the State Government through the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government. Thus, the petition filed before the Financial Com- missioner was the petition under Section 10 of the Act, which lays down that any person may forward to the Government through appropriate Secretary to the Government a petition claiming any right, title or interest in any property included in the List of Gurdwaras published under the Act. The notification dated May 22, 1964 issued by the Punjab Government under Section 7(3) of the Act showed in the List of Gurdwaras the name of ‘Gurdwara Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib’ situated in the revenue estate of Malkana. It was published in the Punjab Government Gazette. Properties belonging to the Gurdwara were also published along with the notification.
7. On a consideration of the rival pleadings, it appears that the Tribunal has taken a correct view in the matter. The Financial Commissioner was not acting as a Revenue Court nor was hearing the parties in any pending suit or proceeding. The petition filed by the petitioners before him was not in the nature of a suit in a Revenue Court, though it is correct that the High Court, while deciding the appeal (R.S.A. No. 1752 of 1961) filed by Har Kaur, decided the question in favour of Har Kaur, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. It may also be true that the appellants, being the purchasers for valuable consideration and having stepped into the shoes of original owner, Mahant Ram Sarup, may seek their remedy as may be available to them in law. They claim themselves to be the owners of the land notified as the property of Gurdwara Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib. But they, instead of filing any suit or proceeding before a competent Court, opted to file a petition before the Financial Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government under Section 30 of the Act. The Financial Commissioner, while entertaining the petition, was not acting as a Revenue Court at that time. The Financial Commissioner might be acting as a Revenue Court in certain matters, but he cannot be treated to be a Revenue Court for all purposes. In the present case, the petition filed before the Financial Commissioner was in respect of a claim put forward by the present appellants in respect of certain properties. In this situation, the role of the Financial Commissioner was that of a Secretary to the Government and not as a Revenue Court. Section 32 of the Act comes into play where a suit or proceeding is pending in a Civil or Revenue Court and it becomes necessary to decide a claim in connection with a notified Sikh Gurdwara. There is nothing on the record to show that any suit or proceeding was pending before the Financial Commissioner functioning as a Revenue Court. Even if the petition filed before him is treated to be a proceeding the next question would arise if the Financial Commissioner was sitting as a Revenue Court while hearing the petition. The petition had been filed by the petitioner-appellants setting up their claim on the properties notified earlier as the properties of the Sikh Gurdwara. Thus, the matter was not at all in the nature of a proceeding before a Revenue Court but was by way of a claim presented before the State Government through the Secretary to the Government.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal that the reference was not competent is not found to be invalid and does not call for any interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.