Unregistered Branch of Registered Religious Society Can Initiate Eviction Proceedings if Authorised by Bye-Laws; Order II Rule 2 CPC Does Not Bar Eviction on Distinct Cause of Action: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Krishan Gopal v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 14 October 2026

Citation: CWP No. 24608 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a local branch of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can initiate eviction proceedings in respect of religious premises without separate registration, provided its governing bye-laws authorise such proceedings. A duly authorised Mahant managing the properties of a religious institution can invoke the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997, for eviction of unauthorised occupants.

The Court further held that Order II Rule 2 CPC does not bar subsequent eviction proceedings arising from a distinct cause of action, merely because an earlier civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction concerning the same property had been decided. The statutory remedy under the 1997 Act is independent of ordinary civil proceedings.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the orders of the Collector and Appellate Authority directing his eviction from land belonging to Dera Udasiyan, situated at Village Nabha, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997.

The dispute concerned approximately 249 bighas of Dera land. Earlier civil litigation had conclusively established respondent No. 4, Darshan Singh alias Darshan Dass, as the duly appointed Mahant of Dera Udasiyan, entitled to administer its properties. The declaration had attained finality following affirmation by the Supreme Court.

The petitioner contended that the eviction proceedings were without jurisdiction because Dera Udasiyan was not independently registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He further argued that the proceedings were barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC, since the Mahant had previously pursued civil remedies concerning the same property without obtaining possession.

Rejecting these contentions, the Court observed that Dera Udasiyan was a branch of Punch Parameshwar Panchayati Akhara Bara Udasin, a registered society whose Memorandum expressly authorised its local Mahants to institute legal proceedings concerning the institution’s properties. Relying on P. Nazeer v. Salafi Trust, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 382, the Court clarified that separate registration of a branch is not essential where the registered society’s bye-laws authorise it to institute proceedings.

On the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC, the Court relied upon Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Ltd. v. Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 82, reiterating that the bar operates only where the subsequent claim arises from the same cause of action.

The Court distinguished the earlier civil suit, which concerned declaration of Mahantship and consequential injunction, from the subsequent statutory proceedings seeking eviction of an unauthorised occupant. It observed that the declaration recognising the Mahant’s entitlement to administer the Dera properties furnished a distinct basis for seeking possession.

Further, the Court emphasised that Section 12 of the 1997 Act expressly bars civil court jurisdiction over eviction of unauthorised occupants from religious premises. Accordingly, proceedings before the Collector constituted the appropriate statutory remedy and could not be defeated by invoking Order II Rule 2 CPC.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction proceedings initiated by the Dera and its duly authorised Mahant under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997.

The Court affirmed that the registered Akhara’s Memorandum authorised the Mahant to institute proceedings on behalf of its branch and that the earlier civil litigation did not bar the subsequent statutory eviction proceedings. The petitioner’s unauthorised occupation of the religious premises furnished sufficient grounds to sustain the eviction orders.