An application for registration of a public trust should be disposed of with due care and attention, and the Assistant Charity Commissioner or Deputy Charity Commissioner should determine whether a trust existed, whether it was a public trust, and whether the properties belonged to the trust.

KANIA, J. :- This is an appeal from the judgment delivered by Mukhi, J., on 7th/8th Jan. 1976,. in First Appeal No.666 of 1973 in this Court. It is the agreed position that, although respondents Nos.10 to 12 have not been served, as no Bhatta has been paid for serving them, they are not necessary parties for the disposal of this appeal. At the hearing it appeared that the disposal of this appeal might involve a question affecting a public charitable purpose and hence notice should be given to the Charity Commissioner, Bombay, regarding this appeal. Mr. Kotwal, the learned Government Pleader, has taken instructions from the Charity Commissioner and is appearing for the learned Charity Commissioner before us and hence no formal notice need be given to the Charity Commissioner. As there is no dispute regarding the order which should be passed in this appeal, it is necessary to set out only very briefly the relevant facts.

2. On 27th Oct. 1967, Dhanaji Fakira Mokashi, appellant No.1 herein, filed an application under S.18 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (referred to hereinafter as "the said Act") before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nasik Region, Nasik for registration of "Koli Gramsevak Samiti, Vitave" (referred to hereinafter as 'the said alleged trust') as a public trust under the said Act. By his order dated 30th Jan. 1969, the Assistant Charity Commissioner ordered that the said alleged trust be registered as a public trust under the said Act and the necessary certificate issued. The said order also determined that the properties mentioned in the application made by appellant No.1 belonged to the said alleged trust. Respondents 1 to 3, who claim to be the owners of the land bearing survey No.363, Hissa No.1./1, being one of the properties held to belong to the said alleged trust, filed a revision application under S.70 of the said Act before the Charity Commissioner, Bombay. This revisional application was disposed of by the Deputy Charity Commissioner with appellate powers, by his order dated 12th June, 1972. The Deputy Charity Commissioner partially allowed the revision application and set aside the order and findings of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in respect of the land bearing survey No.363, Hissa No.1/1, and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing on the question whether the said land was the property of the said alleged trust. On the other questions the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner confirmed the findings of the learned Assistant Charity Commissioner. Respondents 1 to 9 then filed an appeal by way of a miscellaneous application under S.72 of the said Act in the Court of the learned District Judge, Thana. This appeal was numbered as Miscellaneous Application No.156 of 1972 and was disposed of by the learned Assistant Judge, Thana. The learned Assistant Judge held that the appeal or application before him was restricted only to one composite question, viz., whether the said alleged trust really existed and whether it was a public trust within the said Act, and that question had not been decided by the learned Deputy Charity Commissioner. On this footing the learned Assistant Judge held that the appeal or application before him under S.72(1) of the said Act was not maintainable. Respondents 1 to 9 preferred the said Appeal No.666 of 1973 referred to earlier against this order.

3. Mukhi, J. before whom the said appeal came up for hearing, set aside the order and judgment of the learned Assistant Judge, Thana, the order and judgment of the Deputy Charity Commr. in the aforesaid revisional application, as well as the order and judgment of the Assistant Charity Commissioner passed on the application made by appellant No.1 herein. In the course of his Judgment, Mukhi, J., has rightly pointed out that an application, such as the one which was made by appellant No.1 herein, should not have been disposed of in the somewhat casual manner in which it appears to have been disposed of by the lear