ORDER :

R.B. Deo, J.

1. These petitions involve common facts and questions of law and are, therefore, heard and decided by this common judgment.

2. These petitions are preferred challenging the common judgment dated 20.10.1994, rendered by the Joint Charity Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Application No. 05 of 1993, whereby and whereunder, while according sanction under Section 36(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 (for short, "the Act") to sell the land admeasuring 16 acres 2 gunthas from out of S. No. 124 and land admeasuring 17 acres and 37 gunthas from out of S. No. 125, situate at Harsool, Aurangabad, owned by Respondent No. 1-Trust, the Joint Charity Commissioner enhanced the sale consideration to Rs. 10 lakhs per acre. The petitioners herein are the successful bidders who participated in the tender process conducted by Respondent No. 1 -Trust and whose bids were between Rs. 11.50 to Rs. 17.25 per square feet, which approximately corresponds to Rs. 5,00,940/- to Rs. 7,51,410/-, per acre.

3. The facts are broadly admitted or incontrovertible.

4. The Respondent No. 1 is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 1-Trust is the owner and is in possession of several landed properties including the agricultural land admeasuring 60.20 acres forming part of S. No. 124 and agricultural land admeasuring 17.37 acres forming part of S. No. 125, situate at village Harsool, Aurangabad.

5. Respondent No. 1 -Trust resolved to alienate the said agricultural lands. The decision was predicated on the apprehension that it would be extremely difficult for the Respondent No. 1-Trust to manage and protect the agricultural lands and that there was an imminent risk and threat of encroachment. The decision was also influenced by the fact that the said agricultural land was not a source of income for the Respondent No. 1-Trust. For the aforesaid reasons, amongst others, the Respondent No. 1-Trust took a conscious and collective decision to alienate the said agricultural lands.

6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the resolution of the Trustees, a transparent and fair process of inviting bids from prospective purchasers was undertaken. The petitioners herein participated in the tender process, which was given due publicity, and emerged successful.

7. In view of the mandate of Section 36(1)(a) of the Act, the Respondent No. 1-Trust applied for sanction to sell the said agricultural lands to the successful bidders.

8. One Tanaji Bapu Brahmane preferred objections to the prayer for grant of sanction contending that he was a tenant qua a portion of the agricultural land, which the Respondent No. 1-Trust proposed to alienate. The said objection is rejected by the Joint Charity Commissioner, and for sound reasons. In the present petitions, it would not be necessary to spell out with particularity the nature of the objections raised by Shri. Tanjaji Bapu Brahmane. Suffice it to note that the Joint Charity Commissioner recorded a finding that the material on record inter alia, the revenue record, clearly shows that the said objector is not in possession of any portion of the agricultural land qua which sanction was sought.

9. The Joint Charity Commissioner then proceeded to examine, whether it would be in the interest of Respondent No. 1-Trust to grant sanction for the proposed sale. The issue is considered by the Joint Charity Commissioner in paragraph 16 of the judgment, which reads thus:

"16 As regards according sanction for sale of the said lands, there is no harm to consider the prayer made by the applicant trust in the interest of the trust. There is reason to believe that encroachment is likely to be committed over the lands and then it would be very difficult for the applicant-trust to remove the same and thereby considerable loss or damage is likely to be caused to the trust. Moreover there is no income from these agricultural lands and on that ground also sanction for sale of these lands deserve to be accorded