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

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the attachment of Gurudwara Mehtabgarh Sahib in Hanumangarh and the appointment of a receiver, dismissing claims that faith alone can establish ownership over religious property. The court emphasized that religious association or long-standing management does not automatically grant title or exclusive possession without a lawful right.

The decision followed a challenge to an earlier order by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) on October 3, 2025, which attached the gurudwara and appointed an officer named Goluwala as receiver under specified sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Harmeet Kaur, the mukhya sewadar of the gurudwara, had been managing it since 2016. On that date, a group of around 50 to 60 individuals, reportedly armed, attempted to gain entry to the premises through its boundary wall.

The court, led by Justice Farjand Ali, noted that the faith of the petitioner or other devotees, regardless of its depth, could not establish dominion over the property. While prolonged management at a religious site might indicate religious association or management, it did not, in isolation, confer ownership or exclusive possession.

The court also cited Mahatma Gandhi's perspective, as published in his weekly journal Harijan on March 18, 1933, which stated that a devotee needs neither pen, ink, paper, nor speech to reach God. The court interpreted this to mean that worship is an internal experience, not reliant on external communication, and should not be subject to conflicts based on material possession.

Justice Ali highlighted that preventive proceedings over a religious place cannot be used to determine title or proprietary rights. He observed that the dispute centered on management and possession of Gurudwara Mehtabgarh Sahib. According to the FIR, the armed group's attempted entry was followed by two additional FIRs, leading to the SDM's decision to attach the gurudwara and appoint a receiver.

The court examined the petitioner's claims regarding management and the role of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), finding no legal requirement for central SGPC control over every gurudwara. Gurudwaras could be established and managed through local arrangements, and there was no evidence that the disputed property belonged to the SGPC.

The court emphasized that the preventive measures under Sections 164 and 165 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were aimed at maintaining peace, not in adjudicating ownership. A person's long-term management of a gurudwara could establish religious association, but it did not equate to ownership of the land or an absolute right to exclude others.

The petition was dismissed, and the original SDM order and the subsequent revision order were affirmed. The court directed the current SHO of Goluwala Police Station to reassess the current law and order situation and submit a report to the superintendent of police in Hanumangarh. The court reiterated that it did not offer a final judgment on title, ownership, or permanent management of the gurudwara or the land, leaving these questions for resolution by a higher competent authority.