‘Faith can’t prove ownership’: Rajasthan High Court upholds attachment of gurudwara

“The faith of the petitioner or of any other devotee may be genuine, deep-rooted and unquestionable; but such faith, however profound, cannot by itself establish dominion over the property. The fact that a person has remained at a religious place for a long period may establish religious association or management, but it does not, without a lawful source of right, establish title or exclusive possession,” the court said on August 12.

Quoting from Gandhi’s article, the court said that a devotee needs neither pen, ink, paper nor speech to reach God, and mere mute worship becomes the letter, bringing its own unfailing answer and making worship a beautiful exercise of faith, free from the heartbreak and misunderstanding that can accompany human communication.

“He will understand my meaning better if he will realize that I make no distinction between these different abodes of God. They are what faith has made them. They are an answer to man’s craving somehow to reach the UNSEEN,” it said, referring to the article.

Justice Farjand Ali of the Rajasthan High Court said preventive proceedings over a religious place cannot be used to decide title or proprietary rights. (Image enhanced using AI)

The dispute was over the management and possession of Gurudwara Mehtabgarh Sahib. After a group allegedly tried to enter the premises carrying weapons on October 3, 2025, two FIRs were registered and the SDM attached the gurudwara and appointed a receiver. A receiver is a person appointed by the authorities to temporarily take charge of disputed property and keep it under neutral control until the dispute or law-and-order situation is resolved.

Management of gurudwara, SGPC’s role

Harmeet Kaur, the mukhya sewadar of Gurudwara Mehtabgarh Sahib, had managed the gurudwara since 2016. According to the FIR, 50 to 60 people carrying weapons tried to enter the premises by scaling its boundary wall around 3.15 am on October 3, 2025.

Seventeen people were named, a second FIR followed on Kaur’s complaint, and the high court noted that the area had remained disturbed for months, with confrontations occurring with “disturbing frequency”, indicating an imminent possibility of further violence.

The court examined the petitioner’s claims concerning the management of the gurudwara and the role of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). It found no legal provision, established practice, tradition or convention requiring every gurudwara to be centrally controlled by the SGPC. It noted that gurudwaras may be established through contributions and resources of devotees and managed through local arrangements. No material was established that the property in question was owned by the SGPC, it pointed out.

The court stressed that proceedings under sections 164 and 165 of the BNSS are preventive and do not finally adjudicate title or proprietary rights. A person may have managed a gurudwara for a considerable period, it said, but that cannot by itself be equated with ownership of the land or an absolute and exclusive right to exclude others.

Why receiver appointment was upheld

The petitioner argued that Sections 164 and 165 of the BNSS did not authorise the magistrate to disturb possession of the property.

The high court noted that such proceedings require clear, reliable material suggesting an imminent danger of breach of peace and cannot rest on a vague assertion. In this case, however, the court found circumstances sufficient to justify preventive action.

It held that attachment and appointment of a receiver were not an adjudication of title but a temporary measure to neutralise competing claims and prevent either side from taking the law into its hands. “The object is preservation of peace and not declaration of a winner,” the court said. It found no ground to interfere with the preventive action and held that the disputed order could not be termed arbitrary, unreasonable or wholly without jurisdiction.

The petition was dismissed, and the October 3, 2025 SDM order and November 18, 2025 revisional order were affirmed. The high court also directed the present SHO of Goluwala Police Station to freshly assess the prevailing law and order situation and submit a report to the superintendent of police, Hanumangarh.

The court made clear that it had not expressed any final opinion on title, ownership, permanent management or ultimate rights over the gurudwara or land. These questions remain open for determination by the competent forum in accordance with the law.