1. Rule. The learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, waive service of notice of Rule for their respective parties. The matter is finally heard.

2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner is a Charitable Trust, governed by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act (hereinafter referred to as âSthe Actâý). The petitioner applied to the Charity Commissioner for permitting sale of the land admeasuring 6150.57 sq. mtrs., bearing Survey No.15, City Survey No.4453, City No.341, located at Jamnagar (hereinafter referred to as âSthe land/property in questionâý). It may be recorded that the petitioner Trust, after undergoing the procedure for passing the Resolution of the Trust, assessed that the market value of the land is about Rs.2,06,04,400/- and moved the proposal to the Charity Commissioner under Section 36 of the Act on the ground that the Trust is required to spend for Government Tax, Municipal Tax, etc., and may also be required to incur expenses for preservation of the land and it was apprehended that there may be encroachment in future and, therefore, by disposal of the land a huge fund may be created, consequently, the interest income may be generated therefrom and, therefore, the permission was sought from the Charity Commissioner. It appears that before the Charity Commissioner three persons raised objections. One Shri Amitbhai Shah, claiming himself as the former member of the Trust and the beneficiary, resisted the application on the ground that the Trust had no power and there was also no requirement to sell the land, etc. The another person, who resisted the application is Mr.Ajay D. Swadiya, on the ground that he was interested to submit the offer, but as the opportunity was not available, including that of verification of the title deeds, the offer could not be submitted to purchase the land. The third person, Mr.Bajranglal Juharmal Agarwal resisted the application, more or less on the similar grounds as that of Shri Amitbhai Shah. The learned Charity Commissioner permitted, inter se, bidding of the property and ultimately, the highest offer was received of Rs.9,05,00,000/-. The Charity Commissioner passed the order on 1.12.2006, whereby he rejected the objections filed and granted sanction to sell the land in question to one Giriraj Developer, who was the highest offerer for the aforesaid amount.

3. It appears that all the three objectors carried the matter in appeal against the decision of the Charity Commissioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ultimately passed the common judgement and order on 1.11.2007, whereby the appeals are allowed and the order of the Charity Commissioner is set aside. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner Trust as well as the highest offerer have preferred the present petitions before this Court. It may be recorded that Special Civil Applications No.1009, 1010 and 1011 of 2008 are preferred by the petitioner Trust, whereas Special Civil Applications No.1137, 1138 and 1139 of 2008 are preferred by the highest offerer, Giriraj Developers. However, challenge in all the three petitions are against the judgement and order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Charity Commissioner.

4. Heard Mr.Shelat, learned Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr.D.G. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner Trust in SCA Nos.1009, 1010 and 1011 of 2008, Mr.Anshin H. Desai, learned Counsel for Giriraj Developers, the highest offerer, Mr.Marshall, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, Mr.Sejpal, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in SCA Nos.1009, 1011, 1137 & 1138 of 2008, Mr.Antani, learned Counsel for the appellant before the Tribunal (respondent No.1 in SCA Nos.1010 and 1139 of 2008), Ms.Davawala, learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 in all the petitions and Mr.Bharat Jani, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 in SCA No.1139 of 2008.

5. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that it has allowed the appeal main