(O&M)Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhik Vs Karmajit Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

(O&M)Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhik Vs Karmajit Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

1

FAO-2053 & 6 32-1998 (O&M)

[217] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

[1] FAO-2053-1998 (O&M) Reserved on 23.02.2026 Pronounc e d on : 22.05.2026 Uploaded on : 26.05.2026

Wh e ther only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? : No Wh e ther full judgment is pronounced? : Yes

Shiroma n i Gurdwara Parbhandhik Com m ittee through S hri Salwinder Singh, General P ower of Attorn e y, Section 5, Chandigarh …Appellant

versus

Karamjit Singh son of S. Balwant Singh ….Respondent

[2] FAO-632-1998 (O&M)

Wh e ther only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? : No Wh e ther full judgment is pronounced? : Yes

S. Kara m jit Singh son of S. Balwant Sin g h …Appellant

versus

Shiroma n i Gurdwara Parbandhak Commi t ttee, Amritsar t hrough S. Gurminder Singh, General Attorney ….Respondent

Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present: Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, A dvocate for the appellant in FAO-2053-1998 and for t h e respondent in FAO-632-1998.

Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate f or the appellant in FAO-632-1998 and for the respondent in FAO-2053-1998.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] These two cross-appeals file d under Section 142 (3) of The S ikh Gurdwar a Act, 1925 are directed against judgment dated 29.01.1998 pa s sed by Sikh G urdwara Judicial Commission , Amritsar on the petition file d by RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portionsof this document SGPC se e king recovery of ₹ 33,525/-.

2

FAO-2053 & 6 32-1998 (O&M)

[2] SGPC approached Commis s ion under Section 142 of the A ct, claiming that respondent-Karamjit Sin g h was appointed as Manager of Gurdwar a , Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, D a roli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, Dis t rict Faridkot o n 21.12.1984. 20 ½ acres o f land belonging to Gurdwara w as leased ou t by respondent on 11.05.1986 f or the year 1985-86 for an am o unt of ₹ 33,5 2 5/-. 05 acres of land compri s ed in plot No.1 was leased ou t to Jalaur Si n gh for a lease amount of ₹ 82 8 5/-. 5.5 acres of land comprise d in plot No. 2 was leased out to Jalaur Sing h for a lease amount of ₹ 90 0 0/-. Plot No. 3 measuring 05 acres of land w as leased out to Karnail Singh ₹ 9250/-. 05 acres of land comprised in p lot No.4 was leased out to Nir b hai Singh for an amount of ₹ 7050/-. [3] The lease was granted thro u gh auction. Respondent faile d to recover t he payment from lessee(s) a t the time of auction. Repe a ted communi c ations were sent to responde n t to realise the amount from the lessees. P re-auditor in his report dated 0 1.01.1989 brought to the notic e of SGPC th a t even though respondent has realised the amount of ₹ 33,5 2 5/from the lessee(s), but the same has n o t been deposited. As per SG P C, responde n t admitted the same in his sta t ement dated 29.12.1988 but fa i led to produ c e cash book or cash receipt before pre-auditor at the tim e of checking. A legal notice dated 15.03.19 8 9 was served upon him to dep o sit the lease money in the Gurdwara fund within 15 days. Despite that the responde n t failed to deposit the amount.

[4] The petition was conteste d by the respondent. He de n ied employer - employee relationship and cla i med that Judicial Commission has RAJNEESH SHARMA no juris d iction to entertain the petitio n as he was never employed as 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document

3

FAO-2053 & 6 32-1998 (O&M)

Manager under SGPC. He never drew a ny salary. He further claimed t hat an Inspe c tor appointed by SGPC was m a naging the agricultural land an d he has no re a son to misappropriate the amo u nt of ₹ 33,525/-.

[5] Commission vide impugned order held that the respondent w as employe e of SGPC. In order to arrive at the said finding, SGPC relied u p on statemen t made by respondent before Ju d icial Commission in case No.1 3 of 1986 titled as ‘ SGPC, Amritsar versus Mit Singh etc .” The plea raise d by responde n t with respect to his illiteracy was also falsified by testimon y of PW6-Par a mjit Singh Walia, who pro v ed his signatures in Gurmu k hi . Appoint m ent letter of Karamjit Singh h a s come on record as Exhibit P 12 and the s ame stands proved by examini n g PW5-Kulwant Singh, Assis t ant Secretary , SGPC. Relying upon the adm i ssion made by RW1-Nirbhai Si n gh and RW2- Karnail Singh-the lessee(s) re g arding payment of lease amou n t to Makhan S ingh, Patwari, Judicial Commi s sion allowed the petition filed by SGPC in p art and decreed the same agai n st the respondent for an amou n t of ₹ 17,225/- along with interest @ 12% pe r annum. He was disqualified f r om holding a ny post in any notified Sikh G urdwara or Board or becomi n g a member o f any Committee of any noti f ied Sikh Gurdwara or membe r of Board in f uture.

[6] I have heard counsel for t h e parties and have carefully gone through r e cords of the case. [7] The allegation against the respondent is that he was workin g as Manager and managing affairs of Gur d wara Sahib. 20.5 acres of l a nd belongin g to Gurdwara was leased out. A s per SGPC, respondent-Kara m jit RAJNEESH SHARMA Singh th o ugh accepted the amount fro m lessees, but failed to deposit the 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document

4

FAO-2053 & 6 32-1998 (O&M)

same wit h SGPC. Two of the lessees, n amely Nirbhai Singh and Kar n ail Singh ap p eared as RW1 & RW2 and d e posed that they paid lease am o unt not to re s pondent-Karamjit Singh, but to Makhan Singh, Patwari as auc t ion was con d ucted in the presence of Ma k han Singh, Patwari and not the responde n t. In these circumstances, th e Judicial Commission allowed the petition i n part.

[8] Pure finding of facts have b een recorded by the Commiss i on, after app r eciating the entire evidence th r eadbare. The judgment passe d by the Com m ission needs no interference.

[9] In view of the above, findi n g no merit in the present app e als. The same are ordered to be dismissed .

[10] All pending miscellaneou s application(s), if any, st a nds disposed o ff .

[11] Photocopy of this order be p l aced on the file of connected ca s e.

22.05.2026

‘R. Sharma'

(PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.05.26 18:16 I agree to specified portions of this document

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 29.01.1998 passed by the Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar on SGPC's petition seeking recovery of ₹33,525/-; petition allowed in part, decreeing ₹17,225/- with interest @ 12% per annum against respondent-Karamjit Singh, with disqualification from holding posts in notified Sikh Gurdwaras/Boards/Committees.¶¶18
Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission, Amritsar · 29.01.1998
Prior proceeding
SGPC approached the Commission under Section 142 of the Act claiming respondent-Karamjit Singh was appointed Manager of Gurdwara Dehra Sahib Patshahi 6, Daroli Bhai, Tehsil Moga, District Faridkot on 21.12.1984.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
20½ acres of Gurdwara land leased out by respondent on 11.05.1986 for the year 1985-86 for ₹33,525/- through auction, comprising plot-wise leases (Plot 1: 05 acres to Jalaur Singh ₹8285/-; Plot 2: 5.5 acres to Jalaur Singh ₹9000/-; Plot 3: 05 acres to Karnail Singh ₹9250/-; Plot 4: 05 acres to Nirbhai Singh ₹7050/-).¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Pre-auditor submitted a report to SGPC dated 01.01.1989.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Pre-auditor's report stated that respondent had realised the lease amount from the lessees but had not deposited it.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Legal notice dated 15.03.1989 served upon respondent requiring deposit of the lease money in the Gurdwara fund within 15 days; despite that he failed to deposit the amount.¶¶21
Prior proceeding
Petition contested by respondent, who denied employer-employee relationship with SGPC and claimed the Judicial Commission had no jurisdiction as he was never employed as Manager under SGPC and never drew any salary.¶¶22
Prior proceeding
Respondent further claimed that an Inspector appointed by SGPC was managing the agricultural land and he had no reason to misappropriate ₹33,525/-.¶¶25
Prior proceeding
Commission held respondent was employee of SGPC; appointment letter of Karamjit Singh came on record as Exhibit P12, proved by examining PW5-Kulwant Singh, Assistant Secretary, SGPC; respondent's illiteracy plea falsified by testimony of PW6-Paramjit Singh Walia proving his Gurmukhi signatures.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Relying on admissions of RW1-Nirbhai Singh and RW2-Karnail Singh (lessees) regarding payment of lease amount to Makhan Singh, Patwari, the Judicial Commission allowed SGPC's petition in part and decreed ₹17,225/- with interest @ 12% per annum against respondent.¶¶26
Prior proceeding
Respondent was disqualified from holding any post in any notified Sikh Gurdwara or Board or becoming a member of any Committee of any notified Sikh Gurdwara or member of Board in future.¶¶26