YAGYA CHAND vs COMPETENT-AUTHORITY-CUM-COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION NHAI (SLAU-II) AND OTHERS

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

2026:HHC:45916
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.4183 of 2024
Reserved on : 07.10.2026
Date of Decision: 16.10.2026
_____________________________________________________________________
Yagya Chand
……...Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority-cum-Collector and Ors.
…....Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun
Lal, Ms. Sanjivini Sood, Mr. Vidur Kapur and Ms.
Tamanna Basoli, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional
Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr.
Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the
State.
Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent
No.2.
Mr. Arvind Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit
Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

Ms. Shristi Verm, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
__________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J.


Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with non disbursal of the
award amount in terms of supplementary award No. 113/4 dated
22.05.2018 (Annexure­PD Colly.), passed by respondent No. 1­ Competent
Authority­cum­ Collector, Land Acquisition, (hereinafter referred to as the
“CALA”), petitioner herein claiming himself to have constructed structure
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
2
High Court of H.P.
No. 35, which subsequently came to be acquired by respondent No.2­
National Highways Authority of India (in short “NHAI”), has approached this
Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for the following relief(s):
“a) Order and direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to release and pay
the total compensation, in the sum of Rs. 68,32,650/­ (inclusive of
the deposited sum of Rs.66,66,000/­ as well as the
unpaid/undeposited amount of Rs.1,66,650/­ to the petitioner
alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of the Award till
date of payment), in respect of his acquired, Structure No. 35,
standing on Khasra No. 4678/1, in terms of the Annexure PD(Colly)
i.e., Supplementary Award No. 113/4, dated 22.05.2018, pertaining
to Revenue Village Shillihar, Hadbast No. 37/91 ordered by
Respondent No. 1;
b) Quash (Annexure PG) i.e., Communication No. CALA (NHAI)
(SLAU­II)­ to (FDR)/2019, Dated Pandoh, the 03rd June, 2019,
whereby the Rs.66,66,000/­ i.e. amount of compensation was sent to
respondent No. 3 to keep the same in Fixed Deposit; with all
consequences to flow in favour of the petitioner including but not
restricted to the release of the deposited amount of Rs.66,66,000/­
alongwith interest accruing upto date of payment to the petitioner.
c) Order and Direct Respondent No. 3 to release the sum of
Rs.66,66,000/­ alongwith interest accrued thereupon upto the date
of payment, currently held in Fixed Deposits, in the name of the
Respondent No. 1.”
2. Quintessential facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on
record by the respective parties, are that in the year 2017, at the instance
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
3
High Court of H.P.
of NHAI, land acquisition proceedings were commenced by respondent No.
1­CALA, for construction, operation and four laning of the Nerchowk to
Manali section of National Highway­21 in respect of land falling in Mohal
Shilihar, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
3. Petitioner claims that in the aforesaid acquisition proceedings,
his permanent house numbered as 75, situate in village Bhuin, Gram
Panchayat Bhuin, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, also came to be
acquired. To substantiate factum of his having constructed the aforesaid
house, petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the Pariwar
Register dated 28.05.2018 and certificate dated 28.05.2018 issued by the
Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bhuin, Development Block Kullu,
District Kullu as well as a copy of the electricity bill and receipt.
4. Perusal of the aforesaid documents suggests that petitioner
had built and constructed his house, which subsequently came to be
acquired for the four laning of Nerchowk to Manali. Petitioner has also
placed on record copy of the ration card issued in the name of his wife,
wherein all his family members including the petitioner find mention in the
details of family members (Annexure PB).
5. As far as the acquisition proceedings are concerned, as per the
record of respondents No. 1 and 2, house of the petitioner is identified as
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
4
High Court of H.P.
structure No. 35, situate in khasra No. 4678/1, hadbast No. 37/91, in
Revenue Village Shilihar, Tehsil Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P.
6. It is averred in the petition that during the course of the
acquisition proceedings, respondents No. 1 and 2 conducted independent
inquiries based upon the revenue and panchayat record regarding the
structure and the land proposed to be acquired with a view to ascertain the
ownership and correct valuation etc. Respondent authorities engaged the
services of one Engineer Rajesh Baniyal, Valuer and Consultant, who after
visiting the house of the petitioner in order to take measurements and
photographs etc., submitted a detailed report regarding the valuation of the
entire house of the petitioner, building plans, photographs of the inside of
the house of the petitioner, type of structure, quality of building material
used as well as age of the structure and certificate of residence of the
petitioner issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat etc. Copy of the
aforesaid complete report obtained officially from the record of respondent
No.1, duly authenticated and signed by the Patwari, SLAU­II, NHAI at
Pandoh, H.P., showing seal and signatures, is placed on record as
Annexure P­C Colly..
7. Respondent No. 1 announced award No. 113 pertaining to
revenue village Shilihar, hadbast No. 37/91 dated 31.07.2017. Besides
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
5
High Court of H.P.
above, several other supplementary awards also came to be announced.
Supplementary award No. 113/4 was announced on 22.05.2018, which
pertains to the detailed assessment/calculation of structure No. 35 in
respect of the total amount of compensation awarded as payable to the
petitioner (Annexure P­D Colly.).
8. Relevant entry qua the acquired house of the petitioner,
allegedly constructed by him on khasra No. 4678/1, is at serial No. 2194.
Under column No. 16, name of the petitioner, Yagya Chand, S/o Uttam
Chand, stands recorded as the person, who had constructed the
building/structure on the spot. In column No. 7, the structure stands
identified as STR­35. The total amount of compensation payable for the
structure is mentioned under column No. 13 as Rs. 66,66,000/­. In
addition to the aforesaid sum of compensation, other charges @ 2.5% in the
sum of Rs. 1,66,650/­ are also recorded as payable to the petitioner, as per
column No. 14.
9. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have deposited the aforesaid amount
of compensation in the sum of Rs. 66,66,000/­ with respondent No. 3­State
Bank of India. Petitioner claimed that he is entitled to receive the aforesaid
sum of Rs. 66,66,000/­ along with interest accrued thereon till the date of
payment and as such, applied to respondent No. 1­CALA for the release of
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
6
High Court of H.P.
the awarded compensation in his favour, but before order with regard to
disbursement of compensation could be passed by the competent authority,
objections dated 25.06.2018 came to be filed by the President of an alleged
Managing Committee, Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar (respondent
No.4), objecting therein to release of the amount in favour of the petitioner,
(Annexure P­F).
10. In the aforesaid objections, respondent No. 4 claimed that the
award under reference is neither with regard to the structure standing on
the land nor is the same qua property of Yagya Chand, rather, same has
been made with regard to the land and property belonging to Guru Granth
Sahib, Bhuntar, in which, petitioner has no right, title and interest, as was
held by the civil court in two cases.
11. Having taken note of the aforesaid dispute inter se the
petitioner and respondent No. 4, respondent No. 1 vide communication No.
CALA(NHAI)(SLAU­II)(FDR)/2019 dated 03.06.2019 sent a communication
to respondent No. 3 forwarding a cheque in the sum of Rs. 66,66,000/­
with a direction to lodge the same in a fixed deposit in the name of
respondent No. 1 (Annexure PG).
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the records of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
7
High Court of H.P.
13. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that once house of the
petitioner identified as acquired structure No. 35 was of the age of 3 to 4
years at the time of commencement of acquisition proceedings, coupled
with the fact that the expert engineer/valuer of the respondents has also
opined that acquired structure No. 35 was 8 years old and it is not the case
of respondent No. 4 that the structure standing over the land was
constructed by respondent No. 4, there was no occasion, if any, for
respondent No. 1 to not release the award amount in favour of the
petitioner.
14. On 27.07.2023, wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Kanchan,
preferred an application to respondent No. 1 inquiring therein reasons for
non release of the amount of compensation awarded qua structure No. 35
in favour of the petitioner Yagya Chand. In response to the aforesaid
communication, reply dated 02.08.2023 was received (Annexure PH),
perusal whereof reveals that respondent No. 1 has responded to state that
award amount was not released as the structure is allegedly the subject
matter of dispute in RFA No. 240 of 2016, titled Ghanshyam Dass / Yagya
Chand versus Mahender Singh Chawla and others , pending in the High
Court of Himachal Pradesh. In aforesaid communication, respondent No. 1
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
8
High Court of H.P.
further stated that the awarded amount was consequently ordered to be
kept/deposited in FDRs.
15. Though petitioner attempted to clarify with the authority
concerned that there is nothing in the record of respondent No. 1 that
structure is a subject matter of dispute in RFA No. 240 of 2016, rather
copies of jamabandis for the years 2003­2004 and 2008­2009 appended as
Annexure P­J clearly reveal that against khasra No. 4678, no structure had
been reflected in column No. 7, rather throughout only cultivable land and
dhank are mentioned.
16. Since despite there being repeated requests, money qua the
structure, which is claimed to have been constructed by the petitioner, has
not been released, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings
praying for the relief as reproduced hereinabove.
17. Pursuant to notices in the instant proceedings, respondents
No. 1, 2 and 4 have filed their replies, wherein the facts, as noticed
hereinabove, have been not refuted, yet an attempt has been made to refute
the claim of the petitioner on the premise that petitioner cannot claim
compensation because ownership of the land belongs to respondent No. 4­
Guru Granth Sahib and the property dispute inter­se the petitioner and
respondent No. 4 is still pending. Besides above, it is also contended by the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
9
High Court of H.P.
respondents that petitioner has approached this Court directly without
availing the alternative remedy available under the NHAI Act.
18. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and
perused the material on record, this Court finds that precise grouse of the
petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by
Mr. R.L. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner is that
though it stands established on record that structure qua which
compensation as detailed above has been awarded by the competent
authority was constructed by the petitioner coupled with the fact that
respondent No. 4 has no locus, if any, to oppose the claim of the petitioner,
compensation amount is not being released on account of the pendency of
RFA No. 240 of 2016, which otherwise has no connection, if any, with the
controversy at hand.
19. Petitioner asserts that he is the person entitled to receive
compensation for the structure as the same was constructed by him and
was in existence at the spot at the time of acquisition. To substantiate his
aforesaid claim, petitioner has placed reliance upon the certificate issued
by the concerned Patwari (Annexure PC), perusal whereof suggests that the
structure in question is approximately 4 to 5 years old. It is not in dispute
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
10
High Court of H.P.
that aforesaid official record stands prepared in the course of public duty
and constitutes material evidence in favour of the petitioner's title.
20. Moreover, this Court finds that CALA vide supplementary
award No. 113/4 dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure PD Colly.), has admitted the
petitioner to have constructed the building at the spot. More so, respondent
No. 1 in its reply has admitted that amount deposited only pertains to
structure No. 35, which admission is further reiterated at pages 93 and 100
of the paper book. No doubt, respondent No. 4 has stated in its reply that
structure has been constructed on the land, which is the subject matter of
RFA No. 240 of 2016, but there is no specific denial to the claim of the
petitioner that he is entitled to compensation on account of his having
constructed structure on the land in question. An attempt has also been
made by the aforesaid respondent to set up a case that compensation has
been deposited qua both land and structure, which is contrary to the reply
filed by CALA, respondent No. 1.
21. In the case at hand, respondent No. 4 filed objections,
(Annexure PF), asserting that structure was built more than 60 years ago
and belongs to the Gurdwara, however, as has been noticed herein above,
concerned Patwari vide certificates (Annexure PC Colly.), has clarified that
the structure is approximately 4 to 5 years old. Besides above, Engineer
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
11
High Court of H.P.
Rajesh Baniyal, Valuer and Consultant engaged by the respondent
authorities, after visiting the house of the petitioner (Annexure PC), has
also reported that house was constructed 7­8 years back.
22. Though there appears to be a dispute pending in the competent
court of law qua ownership of the land, but certainly petitioner's claim qua
compensation for the structure allegedly raised by him 5 to 8 years back
does not depend upon the proof of title to the underlying land alone.
Acquisition includes structure No. 35 and compensation for such structure
must be paid to the person, who has established an interest in the
structure. Needless to say, building, superstructure or improvement
standing on the acquired land is independently compensable and the
person, who constructed, possessed, owned or beneficially enjoyed the
structure is a person interested to that extent.
23. Though Management Committee of Guru Granth Sahib,
Bhuntar (respondent No. 4) has claimed that the structure was built more
than 60 years ago and belongs to Gurdwara, however, the civil suit relied
upon by the Committee pertains only to the land (Annexure PK). There is no
pleading qua the ownership of structure No. 35. Aforesaid suit does not
seek any declaration or relief regarding the structure. A land dispute
without a specific plea or adjudication qua the structure cannot be treated
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
12
High Court of H.P.
as proof of entitlement to compensation for the structure, rather to
determine the entitlement of the petitioner, award made by the competent
authority for land acquisition is the most relevant document in the
acquisition proceedings (Annexure PD). Once it stands duly recorded in the
award that petitioner constructed the building at the spot, which fact has
been further substantiated with the certificate issued by the Patwari,
petitioner can be said to have discharged prima facie burden and now the
burden shifts upon the rival claimant to produce cogent and convincing
evidence to establish ownership of the structure, which in the case at hand
has not been produced.
24. It is apt to take note of the fact that prior to the initiation of the
acquisition proceedings, a civil suit bearing No. 53 of 1997, titled as
Mahender Singh Chawla versus Uttam Singh, was filed concerning the
management and ownership of Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar
over the disputed land, wherein Yagya Chand was defendant No. 4.
Aforesaid suit was decided on 31.03.2016 and decreed in favour of the
plaintiffs, but subsequently, judgment passed in the suit was challenged in
RFA No. 240 of 2016, titled Ghanshyam Dass versus Mahender Singh,
which is pending adjudication before this Court. Vide order dated
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
13
High Court of H.P.
20.07.2016, this Court stayed execution of the impugned order dated
31.03.2016 in RFA No. 240 of 2016.
25. There is another important aspect of the matter. Aforesaid suit,
which came to be filed prior to the initiation of acquisition proceedings by
the respondent under Section 92 of CPC, was for the appointment of a new
trustee of Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar as well as of its said
property, vesting the property and management of the said Guru Granth
Sahib, directing the defendants to deliver possession of the trust property,
directing defendant No. 1 to render accounts of the property of Guru
Granth Sahib, Bhuntar, and lastly for framing of a scheme for the proper
management of Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar along with property.
26. In the aforesaid suit, it came to be pleaded that defendant No.
1, now deceased Uttam Singh, father of the present petitioner, was servant
of Santokh Singh and was living in the Gurdwara along with him. In the
year 1984, when Sikh riots took place in Bhuntar, people belonging to the
Sikh community left Bhuntar out of fear, including members of the
Committee. Taking advantage of this position, Uttam Singh got himself
entered as a Kardar/Mohtamim of Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar. It is also
alleged that he transferred the property of the Gurdwara in favour of
defendant Kewal Ram and also Khemi Ram and his own two sons, namely
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
14
High Court of H.P.
Ghanshyam Dass and Yagya Chand, by means of execution of patta
dawami. It also came to be alleged in the aforesaid suit that aforesaid
Uttam Chand misappropriated the amount received on such transfer. It
also came to be alleged that Uttam Chand without authority was not
recognizing the authority of the Committee consisting of defendants No. 6
to 8.
27. It was alleged therein that in a previously instituted suit by Sh.
Harbans Singh i.e. Civil Suit No. 216 of 1989, which suit was dismissed by
the learned trial Court and further carried in appeal before the learned
Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1993 and same was
allowed, as a consequence thereof, the suit was decreed. Defendant No. 1
in the aforesaid suit, namely Uttam Singh (predecessor of Yagya Chand i.e.
present petitioner), preferred Regular Second Appeal bearing RSA No. 129
of 1997 before this Court, which ultimately came to be allowed vide
judgment dated 03.09.2021. It is pertinent to mention here that against
the said judgment dated 03.09.2021, a review petition No. 106 of 2021, had
been filed, which was allowed in terms of decision dated 11.8.2026.
Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment read as under:
“20. Be that as it may, at the time purchase of the suit property, by
one Ishwar Singh, in the name of Guru Granth Sahib, conspicuously
when it occurs in District Kullu, H.P., and whereat, at the relevant
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
15
High Court of H.P.
time of purchase supra, the trite territory fell, in the erstwhile
Punjab, and to which, the provisions, of The Sikh
Gurudwara Act 1925, rather were applicable, neither evidently
the afore Ishwar Singh, nor Sikh worshipers numbering 50 or more,
nor thereafter any sikh worshipers, of the disputed sikh shrine,
hence numbering 50 or more, rather proceeded to, cast a petition
under Section 3 or under Section 7,of the Afore Act, seeking
therethrough, a declaration for the sikh shrine being declared
as a sikh gurudwara. Since the Sikh Gurudwara Act 1925 is a
special statute rather governing the mode of enlistment of the sikh
shrine, in the apposite schedule, and, also regulates the
makings of declaration, of ,any shikh shrine, hence as a sikh
gurudwara besides regulates the appointments concerned to the
Sikh Shrine concerned. Therefore, it acquires complete force,
vis­à­vis, the facet supra, and, no legal mechanism than,
the ones contemplated in statutory provisions thereof, becomes
amenable for becoming recoursed, rather for the relevant
purpose, by the plaintiff. Consequently neither the plaintiff and nor
the defendant can at this stage make any dependence, upon
provisions supra. However, Section 29 of The Sikh Gurudwara
Act 1925, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter also do
require, an allusion being made thereto, provisions whereof become
extracted hereinafter:­
“29. Exclusion of jurisdiction of the courts.
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law or
enactment for the time beingin force no suit shall be instituted
and no court shall entertain or continue any suit or
proceeding, in so far as such suit or proceeding involves­
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
16
High Court of H.P.
(1) any claim to, or prayer for the restoration of any person to
an office in a Notified Sikh Gurudwara or any prayer for the
restoration or establishment of any system of
management of a Notified Sikh Gurdwara other than a system
of management established under the provisions of Part III;
(2) any claim to, or prayer for the restoration of any person to
an office in or any prayer for the restoration or establishment
of any system of management of, any gurdwara in respect of
which a notification has been published in accordance with
the provisions of subsection (3)of Section 7 unless and until it
has been decided under the provisions of Section 16 that such
gurdwara should not be declared to be a Sikh
Gurdwara.”
though section (supra), completely bars the exercisings of
jurisdictions, by the civil Court concerned, inasmuch as, for
entertaining any suit, appertaining to establishment of a
system, for managing of Gurudwara, nor any claim or prayer is
amenable to be made before any civil court concerned, and,
appertaining to registration of any person, to any office, nor any
prayer for registration of management of any Gurudwara, in respect
whereof a notification, has been published, in accordance
with the provisions, of sub­section 3 of Section 7, can be validly
made before the Civil Court concerned, unless and until, the Arbitral
mechanism contemplated in the Act (supra), inasmuch as in Section
16 of the Act, rather makes a decision that the Gurudwara should
not be declared to be a sikh gurudwara.
21. However, a reading of the afore extracted provisions, as
carried in Section 7, and, Section 29, does make imminent
disclosure(s), that Section 7 is applicable, only upon, the provisions
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
17
High Court of H.P.
enshrined therein, besides the provisions occurring in the prior
thereto section(s), becoming complied with. However, since as
aforestated, neither one Ishwar Singh during his life time, nor
thereafters hence the apposite Sikh congregation(s), numbering 50,
or more hence recoursed the provisions, as carried in Chapter­2, nor
when thereafter(s), the proceedings, under Section 16 of the Act, with
respect to the strived for declaration, became commenced nor
became terminated, with respect to the apposite shrine
being not amenable for being or being amenable for being declared
as a sikh gurudwara. Significantly, when Section 29 thereof,
rather conditionally bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court, only,
upon, and, uptil the mandate pronounced in Section 16 of the Act
(supra) becoming completely terminated. However, since as stated
(supra) the afore mandate remained unrecoursed Therefore,
operation of afore Section 29, vis­a­vis, therethroughs, the
jurisdiction of the civil court concerned, becoming ousted, especially
in respect of matters, mentioned therein, cannot be accepted,
to, fall within the domain of section supra. However, yet the
afore drawn inference, vis­avis, the suit property at its inception,
hence assuming, the trait of animus­dedicandi, does assume the
fullest vigor, as, it dehors the statutory declaration rather
facilitates public worship, of, the holy book, hence within the
apposite hallowed precincts, and, for ensuring collective worships,
thereto(s) this Court has appointed the D.C., Kullu, as, Court
Receiver, of the suit property.
22. Be that as it may, Section 38 of the Sikh Gurudwara
Act 1925, occurring in Chapter­IV of Special Statue,
(supra), contains relevant conditional civil Court jurisdiction
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
18
High Court of H.P.
vesting provision, provision(s) whereof, are extracted
hereinafter:­
“38. Recourse to ordinary courts in cases where action has
not been taken under Part I with a view to
application of provisions of Part III to gurdwara.­
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
other Act or enactment in force, any two or more
persons having interest in any gurdwara in respect of which
no notification declaring the gurdwara to be a Sikh
Gurdwara has been published under the provisions of
this Act may, after the expiry of one year from the
commencement of this Act [or, in the case of the extended
territories, from the commencement of the Amending Act, as
the case may be] or of such further period as the [State]
Government may have fixed under the provisions of
sub­section (1) of Section 7, and after having obtained the
consent of the Deputy Commissioner of the district in which
such gurdwara is situated institute a suit, whether
contentious or not, in the principal court of original
jurisdiction or in any other court empowered in that behalf by
the [State] Government within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the gurdwara is situated praying for any of the
reliefs specified in section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908(5 of 1908), and may in such suit pray that the
provisions of Part III may be applied to such gurdwara.
(2) The court in which a suit is instituted under the provisions
of sub­section (1) shall decide whether the gurdwara is or is
not a gurdwara as described in subsection (2) of Section 16,
and if the court decides that it is such a gurdwara and
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
19
High Court of H.P.
is also of opinion that, having regard to all the
circumstances, the gurdwara is one to the management of
which the provisions of Part III should be applied, the
court shall by public advertisement and in such other
manner as it may in each case direct, call upon any person
having interest in the gurdwara to appear and show cause
why the provisions of Part III should not be so applied, and
shall in its order fix a date not less than one month from the
date of the order on which any person appearing
shall be heard.
(3) Upon the date fixed under the provisions of subsection (2)
or on any subsequent date to which the hearing may be
adjourned, the court shall proceed to hear the person or
persons, if any, appearing and if the court is satisfied that the
provisions of Part III can be applied to the management of the
gurdwara without prejudice to any existing order or decree
relating to the gurdwara and conferring on any person or
declaring any person to be entitled to any right, in respect of
the administration or management thereof, the court shall
pass a decree that the said provisions shall apply to the
management of the gurdwara.
(4) Upon such decree being passed and subject to any order
that may be passed on appeal against or in revision
of the decree the provisions of Part III shall apply to such
gurdwara as if it had been declared by notification under the
provisions of this Act to be a Sikh Gurdwara.
(5) When under the provisions of sub­section (3) the provisions
of Part III have by decree been applied to the management of
a gurdwara any hereditary officeholder of such gurdwara
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
20
High Court of H.P.
who within twelve months after the date of the decree has
resigned office or been removed from office otherwise than in
accordance with the provisions of section 134 or under the
provisions of section 142 or a presumptive successor of such
officeholder, may within ninety days from the date of the
resignation or removal, as the case may be of such
office­holder, present a petition to the Court which
passed the decree claiming to be awarded
compensation on the ground that he has suffered or will suffer
pecuniary loss owing to a change in the management of
such gurdwara and the court may, notwithstanding the
fact that such office­holder has voluntarily resigned, pass
a decree awarding him compensation as if such
office­holder had been unlawfully removed from his office.
(6) The provisions of sections 22, 23, 24 and 25 shall so far
as may be, apply to proceedings under the provisions
of sub­section (5) and to proceedings arising therefrom, as if
the court was a tribunal.”
The provisions supra, when commence with a non obstante clause,
obviously hence override, the prior thereto provisions, as carried
in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Act (supra), also operate(s) as
an exception thereto(s). Therefore, therethroughs, the apposite
jurisdiction of the civil court(s) rather becomes conditionally
preserved, even when the statutory provisions prior thereto,
appertaining to, the, Sikh shrine being or not being a sikh
gurudwara, hence remained unrecoursed. However, the statutory
conditional vestment of jurisdiction, in the civil Courts, by Section 38
supra, is rested upon the statutory leave, of the Deputy
Commissioner concerned, being asked, and, it being also
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
21
High Court of H.P.
granted, imperatively prior to the institution of the suit. However,
when the afore statutory leave became evidently niether asked for,
nor when it became granted. In nutshell, for breach of the mandate
of Section 38 of the Act, this Court concludes,that the instant civil
suit is grossly misconstituted, and, also is not ­47­ maintainable,
besides obviously the civil court, had no jurisdiction, to try
and maintain it, without the prior thereto statutorily mandated
leave, envisaged in Section 38 of the Act (supra), being asked for, and
it being accorded, by the Deputy Commissioner of District Kullu,
H.P.
23. In view of the afore observation, there is merit in the instant
appeal, and, the same is accordingly allowed. The judgment(s) and
decree(s) impugned before this Court is set aside. The substantial
questions of law are accordingly answered. The plaint is ordered to
be returned it being barred by law. All pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.”
28. Vide the aforesaid judgment, Coordinate Bench of this Court
allowed the appeal and returned the plaint. Entire case set up by
respondent No. 4 in the said proceedings is/was that one Mr. Ishwar Singh,
who was a worshipper of Guru Granth Sahib, had constructed a Gurdwara
and he had endowed whole of the property which was standing in his name
in favour of the said Guru Granth Sahib, which was subsequently kept in
the Gurdwara. At the cost of repetition, they filed a Civil Suit No. 216 of
1989 before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Lahaul and Spiti, praying
therein for a decree of declaration to the effect that defendant No. 1
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
22
High Court of H.P.
(petitioner herein), is not legally appointed Kardar of Guru Granth Sahib,
Bhuntar and the transfer of the property of Guru Granth Sahib by Mr.
Uttam Singh, defendant, in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 and others, if
any, is void and inoperative and also not legal and for the interest and legal
necessity of Guru Granth Sahib, defendants be restrained from raising any
sort of construction over the suit land, khasra No. 511/920­ 939, by way of
decree for permanent prohibitory injunction.
29. Once vide judgment dated 03.09.2021, which further came to
be reviewed vide judgment dated 11.08.2023 passed in Review Petition No.
106 of 2021, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and plaint was ordered to
be returned, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. R.L. Sood, learned
Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, that otherwise also, respondent
No. 4 has no locus, if any, to lay challenge to the claim of the petitioner qua
compensation awarded for the structure standing on the land. Since
Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No. 129 of 1997 did not find
respondent No. 4 to have been constituted strictly in terms of the
provisions of law, pendency of RFA bearing No. 240 of 2016 filed by the
petitioner, laying therein challenge to the judgment and decree dated
31.03.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan in Civil Suit No. 26
of 2012, wherein otherwise a specific prayer has been made for the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
23
High Court of H.P.
appointment of a new trustee of Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib, Bhuntar
and its property, may not be of much relevance as far as the present
petitioner is concerned. The Management Committee of Guru Granth
Sahib, Bhuntar, which otherwise does not appear to have any locus to
contest the claim of the petitioner in light of the judgment dated
03.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in RSA No. 129 of
1997, has asserted that the structure was built more than 60 years ago
and belongs to the Gurdwara, however civil suit relied upon by the
Committee admittedly pertains only to the land, wherein there is no
pleading with regard to the ownership of structure No. 35. There is no
averment that the structure, qua which compensation is being claimed,
was constructed by the Gurdwara. Neither has any declaration been sought
nor any relief regarding the structure.
30. Once the award records that the petitioner constructed the
building at the spot and such fact has been further substantiated with the
certificate issued by the Patwari, the claim of the petitioner for the release
of compensation in his favour, deserves to be allowed.
31. Vide judgment dated 3.9.2021, Coordinate Bench of this Court
in RSA No. 129 of 1997, has categorically held that the Gurudwara Guru
Granth Sahib, Bhuntar never came into existence and is not a legal entity.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
24
High Court of H.P.
It has been held in para 20 that the Gurudwara could only come into
existence under the provisions of the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925. The
procedure therein was never followed. Hence, in effect it has been held that
there is no legal body or entity known as the "Gurudwara Guru Granth
Sahib Bhuntar". It has further been held in para­22 that Civil Courts have
no jurisdiction in the matter. Hence, as per para­23 of the judgment and
decree, the appeal was allowed and the judgments and decrees of the
learned Courts below were set aside. Therefore, the property in question
can never be said to have been ever owned or possessed by Gurudwara
Guru Granth Sahib Bhuntar. The substantial questions of law were
accordingly answered. Consequently, as on date, there is no legal entity by
the name of Gurudwara Guru Granth Sahib Bhuntar or Granth Sahib
Bhuntar. Thus, it cannot own or claim any property much less the built up
structure No. 35 of Yagya Chand, or the awarded compensation qua
acquisition of the same, by the National Highways Authority of India, which
is the subject matter of present petition. Coordinate Bench in afore RSA
has categorically held that provisions of S. 7 and 8 of Sikh Gurudwara Act
were not followed.
32. Consequently, the judgment and decree of learned District
Judge impugned in RFA No. 240 of 2016 cannot be said to have any
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
25
High Court of H.P.
bearing on rights of petitioner Yagya Chand to claim the awarded
compensation in the sum of Rs. 66,66,000/­ which stands deposited with
the State Bank of India, Pandoh along with interest accruing thereupon.
Petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,66,650/­ along with interest
which has not been deposited by National Highways Authority of India
(respondent No. 3).
33. In case titled Union of India versus Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9
SCC 304 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a person whose property is
acquired under the National Highways Act cannot be subjected to
discriminatory or unfair treatment in the matter of compensation. The
principle set up by the Hon'ble Apex Court that compensation for
compulsory acquisition must be just and fair supports the petitioner's
submission that compensation for the acquired structure must be released
to the person legally entitled to it.

34. Otherwise also, precise case of respondent No. 4 is that till the
time ownership dispute is finally decided, no compensation should be
released to Yagya Chand (petitioner herein), because the acquired property
is claimed by the religious trust­Guru Granth Sahib and the related matter
is still pending. However, as has been taken note of above, Coordinate
Bench of this Court in RSA No. 129 of 1997 dated 03.09.2021 has already
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS

2026:HHC:45916
26
High Court of H.P.
held the constitution of the management of Gurdwara Guru Granth Sahib
to be bad in law and the suit filed in that regard by the so called trustee,
respondent No. 4, has been returned.
35. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the petition and accordingly the same
is allowed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to release the compensation
awarded vide supplementary award No. 113/4 dated 22.05.2018 (Annexure
PD) i.e. Rs.66,66,000/­, qua the structure/building in favour of the
petitioner along with sum of Rs. 1,66,650/­ with up­to­date interest
expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks along with up to
date interest. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along
with pending applications, if any.
October 16, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 16:51:53 :::CIS