The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the Aayas' authority to sell or transfer temple properties as per the terms of appointment and the interpretation of the powers of the Assistant Devsthan Commissioner under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.

Mohammad Rafiq, J.-The State of Rajasthan has come up in appeal against the Judgment of the

learned Single Judge dated 012.1992 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent against the notice dated 15.05.1981 and the order dated 04.07.1981 both of which were issued/passed by the Assistant Devsthan Commissioner, Udaipur were quashed.

2. Respondent Aayas Shri Mangal Nath filed a writ petition before this Court claiming himself to be Mahant of the Asan known as Chomukhanath Mahadev. He asserted that his predecessors were Rajguru of Maharanas of Mewar and the office he holds was the principal seat of Nath Sampraday having control over 49 Asans of this Sampraday. Former Maharana of Mewar gifted various properties to the Aayas of Chaumukhanath in the form of land and houses which have successively devolved up on the disciples of the Gurus who latter occupied the office of Aayas. Such disciples were nominated either by Guru himself during his lifetime or in the event of there being no such nomination, were appointed according to the maufi rules prevalent in the former Mewar State. Village of Laduwas was given as maufi to the ancestors of the petitioner. As per the customs and traditions of the sampraday, Aayas was the absolute owner of such properties. It was stated that petitioners predecessor Aayas Shri Bhura Nath died intestate on 04.02.1958. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Aayas by Government order dated 211.1965 under which a committee was also appointed to assist him in discharge of his duties. The committee was later dissolved by Government order dated 212.1965.

3. The State of Rajasthan proceeded to resume the Jagir of Laduwas on 07.08.1954. On the objection filed by the Aayas that the properties of this Jagir being "Sardarshan Maufi" could not be resumed, that State Government while resuming such land on 011.1959 held that the Asan would be entitled to an annuity in perpetuity to the extent of Rs. 8288.44 per annum which would be used for its upkeep and maintenance. The petitioner created a trust which he got registered with Devsthan Department on 15.07.1975 as a public trust. Apart from the landed property at village Laduwas, the Aayas had considerable properties in the shape of Haveli and a Badi at Udaipur which were gifted to his ancestors by the former Maharanas of Mewar. Owner-ship of the said properties were conferred on the Aayas by a Tamrapatra, transcription of which has been placed on record as Annexure 1. Jagir Commissioner in his order dated 07.05.1964 also held that Haveli at Udaipur was personal property of Aayas Mathadheesh. This order was confirmed by the Board of Revenue by its Judgment dated 22.02.1966. These Judgment s established that Haveli was personal property of Aayas who was its absolute owner and Devsthan Department had nothing to do with it. The appellant has placed on record copies of various documents to show that his predecessors have been selling out parcels of the land. However, some persons inimically disposed towards him made a complaint to Devsthan Department. The Assistant Devsthan Commissioner proceeded to issue notice to the appellant under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The appellant challenged the said notice by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1040/81. Another notice was served on the petitioner on 15.05.1981 to show cause as to why action may not be initiated against him for alienating the property of the temple. He filed reply to such notice reiterating his stand that he was owner of these properties. The Assistant Devsthan Commissioner however passed the impugned order on .04.07.1981 on the application of one Jaimal Singh. It was therefore prayed that the notice dated 15.05.1985 and the order dated 04.07.1981 passed by the Assistant Devsthan Commissioner, Udaipur may be quashed and set aside.

4. The State of Rajasthan through Assistant Devsthan Commissioner contested the aforesaid petition and filed reply. In the reply it was denied that th