A trust is public if it is for the benefit of the community or a class of the community, and a charitable trust is one that is created for the advancement of religion, knowledge, commerce, health, safety, or any other object beneficial to mankind.

L. RATH. J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seek quashing of the orders passed by the Tribunal constituted under S. 57-A of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (Act 16 of 1960) declaring the Kanika Museum and the Rajendranarayan Botanical Garden, the opposite party No. 1 respectively in each of the cases, as charitable trusts of public nature with Raja Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo as the trustee under S. 2 (24) (e) of the said Act and the properties claimed under each of the respective trusts as trust properties. So far as O. J. C. No. 150/81 is concerned, the facts are that an application was filed by the opposite party No. 1 through Raja Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo, since substituted by opposite parties 1 (a) to 1 (c), before the Tribunal-cum-Subordinate Judge seeking declaration as trustee-holder of a religious/charitable trust of a public nature. In an accompanying statement to the application giving short history of the creation of the trust, the opposite party No. 1 contended that the applicant Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo and his father late Rajendranarayan Bhanja Deo being very much interested in studying the various intellectual and historical aspects of rare objects of beauty such as works of art, trophies, historical documents and records collected by them and preserved in four principal rooms of the main palace at Raj Kanika, he established the trust in memory of his late father. The properties constituting the trust are being utilised for the upkeep and maintenance of the museum from the date of foundation of the trust being dedicated from the beginning, although a formal deed of dedication of the same was made on 31-12-71 and with the purpose of the trust as preservation of rare objects of historic importance for research and intellectual pursuit of life. During the hearing, two registered trust deeds were exhibited, the first executed on 12th Sept. , 1970 creating the trust and declaring the properties described in the schedule thereto, Ac. 25. 005, as also such objects and records as would be permanently made over thereafter by the founder of the trust or the succeeding trustees, to become the properties of the trust. The second deed executed on 31st Dec. 1971 purported to vest some more properties of a total of Ac. 80. 92 in the trust with a recital that the trustee having found the income of the properties made over earlier not sufficient to manage the same, the subsequent vesting was made. Thus, the total property allotted to the trust was Ac. 105. 925. In support of the claim, the applicant also adduced oral evidence and exhibited three visitors' book volumes and some other documents, reference to which would be made later.

( 2 ) SO far as O. J. C. No. 152/81 is concerned, the facts are that an application was made by opposite party No. 1 through the same Sailendranarayan Bhanja Deo, since substituted by opposite parties 1 (a) to 1 (c), claiming opposite party No. 1 Rajendranarayan Botanical Garden to be declared a charitable trust of public nature and himself to be the trustee thereof as contemplated under S. 2 (24) (e) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and the properties in the schedule to the application, a total of Ac. 86. 85, as trust properties. In the statement of facts appended to the application giving a short history of creation of the trust, the trust was claimed to be created for the purpose of advancing study, research and experimentation on botany, horticulture and agriculture and providing for such intellectual recreation as may befit the said objects of the trust. At the hearing, the registered trust deed executed on 8th July, 1965 by the applicant declaring the properties mentioned therein to constitute the trust properties was exhibited and certain other documents were also filed Besides, oral evidence was led by the petitioner in support of the claim.

( 3 ) THE present petitioner was an objector before the Tribunal contesting the genuineness o