( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order, dated 2-5-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-C ). passed by the Sub-Divisional officer. Raghurajnagar, appointing trustees in place of other trustees and imposing a fine of Rs. 250/-, purporting to act under Section 33 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh public Trusts Act, 1951, for an alleged contravention of Section 25 (2) of the said act. The petitioners challenged the said order mainly on the grounds that the Sub-Divisional Officer. Raghurajnagar, had no jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the collector as Registrar of Public Trusts and secondly, he had no territorial jurisdiction, which according to the petitioners, vested in the Sub-Divisional officer, Nagod. The further ground urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the power to remove the trustees did not vest in the Registrar of Public Trusts, but the same could be exercised by the District Court only and, in any case, no fine could be imposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, functioning as Registrar of Public Trusts.

( 2 ) TAKING up the question of jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, raghurajnagar, we may observe that although according to Section 3 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951, the Collector is the Registrar of Public Trusts, Section 34-A of the Act empowers the Registrar to delegate his powers to a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer. The said section is as follows:-

"section 34-A.-- Delegation of powers by Registrar.-- Subject to the provisions of this Act and to such restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed, the Registrar may, by order in writing, delegate all or any of his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer. "

In pursuance of the powers conferred by the Section, the Collector, namely, the registrar of Public Trusts, Satna, by order No. 1009/r/63, dated 13th August, 1965 fa certified copy of which has been filed on record) delegated the powers to the Sub-Divisional Officers in the following words:"in exercise of the powers conferred on me under Section 34-A of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951. I hereby delegate all my powers and duties under this Act to the Sub-Divisional Officers in respect of their jurisdiction as Sub-Divisional Officers. Sd/- K. G. Telang, registrar-cum-Collector, public Trusts. District Satna. "

Thus, the Registrar having delegated the powers and duties to the Sub-Divisional officers, no exceptions can be taken of the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer, raghurajnagar, exercised powers in the present case. That is an objection without any basis.

( 3 ) AS regards the territorial jurisdiction it is true that the Sub-Divisional Officers are empowered to try cases within their jurisdiction as Sub-Divisional Officers. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the temple known as 'shri digamber Jain Mandir Singhpur is located in Tahsil Nagod and, therefore, the sub-Divisional Officer, Nagod, only is empowered to try the present case. In this connection attention was invited to the fact that the petition originally was filed on 5-2-1970 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar. Therefore, it is contended that the presentation itself was invalid. The Sub-Divisional Officer, raghurainagar, sent the case to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagod, who tried the same till 31-8-1971 and on that date, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagod sent back the case to the Sub Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar Therefore, it is contended that all the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghurajnagar, are null and void as being carried without jurisdiction. ( 4 ) IN this connection it is pertinent to note that according to Section 3 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act, 1951 the Collector is the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust the principal office or the principal place of busine