ORDER

Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari

1. Regard being had to the similitude of controversy, both the writ appeals are heard analogously and decided by this common order.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of Writ Appeal No. 1553/2024 are being taken into consideration.

3. These appeals under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 are preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 27.2.2024 passed in W.P. No.1940/2012; whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 against the order dated 31.1.2012 passed by Sub Divisional Officer & Registrar, Public Trust, Dewas has been allowed by the writ Court.

4. The petitioner/respondent No.1 has challenged order dated 31.1.2012 for cancellation of registration of Public Trust namely Javeri Public Trust, Dewas affected vide registration dated 22.12.1976 and has directed for cancellation of permission to sale (dated 18.12.1979) with a further direction of constitution of Government Committee and appointment of Tehsildar as the Administrator. The petitioner/respondent No.1 challenged the said order dated 31.1.2012 solely on the ground that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is beyond the scope and purview of section 36(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). Learned writ Court after hearing the arguments and considering the record, vide order dated 27.2.2024 (Annexure A/1) set aside the order dated 31.1.2012 with a further direction to remand the matter to the Registrar to examine and conduct an enquiry under sections 22 and 23 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, respondent Nos. 1 & 2/appellants herein have preferred the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned writ Court has not taken note of the order dated 9.2.2017 passed in W.P. No.2214/2012 (Rajendra Kumar v. State of M.P. & Ors.), wherein also order dated 31.1.2012 (Annexure P/11) i.e. impugned order in the present petition, whereof the operative portion reads as under:

“This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer. The order to the extent the Sub Divisional Officer has recalled the permission of sale granted in the matter of trust property is upheld. However, as the Registrar has earlier held the trust to be a public trust, which was duly registered as a public trust and the matter has been scrutinized by the District Judge, it will remain a public trust and the order of Registrar dated 13.5.2005 to the extent Registrar has treated the entire property as a government property, is set aside. A proper committee has to be constituted in terms of the order passed by District Judge dated 13.5.2005.

This Court is of the opinion that to the extent the permission to dispose of the trust property is concerned, the order passed in the matter does not warrant any interference. However, to the extent the trust property has been treated as government property, the order stands set aside.”

6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that otherwise also, order dated 31.1.2012 came to be passed in the spirit that whole of the subject property being the government managed temple and the lands attached thereto were also government managed affairs, therefore, by virtue of section 36 of the Act, Javeri Public Trust could not have been registered, due to nonapplicability of Act on the government land. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellants prays for setting aside of impugned order.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposed the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for appellants while contending that learned writ Court vide the impugned order has rightly observed that the appellant did not have the power to revoke permission once granted under section 14 of the Act. The genesis of the same is that; once permission under section 14 is granted by the Registrar to the trust for ali