Amitava Roy, J. - (1.) THE instant proceeding has been referred to the Division Bench in view of the observation of the learned Single Judge recorded in the order dated 18.5.2012 quoted hereunder: - In view of my disagreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Balwant Singh (Supra) on the interpretation of Section 31 of the Act of 1959, let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a Division Bench to consider the question as to "whether the previous sanction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Devasthan Department is not required for the alienation of the property of the public trusts under the Act of 1959 in situations where the deed of trust allows for alienation of the immoveable and moveable property of the trust. We have heard Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE brief facts necessary to be noted are that the petitioners had purchased land measuring 0.77700 hectare in Khasra No. 1905/275 situated at west side to the Nawalgarh, Jhunjhunu Bye -pass from Badridas Choudhary (Goyanka) Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust') vide a registered sale deed dated 29.8.2011, following which, mutation was also granted to them. At this stage, some villagers made a complaint to the District Collector, Jhunjhunu, whereupon the Sub Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh vide letter dated 14.12.2011 required the Tehsildar, Nawalgarh to ensure that the status quo of the land be maintained. It was inter alia mentioned in the said letter that the land had been purchased in contravention of Section 31 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that unlawfully, the process of levelling the same was reportedly being undertaken. This was pursuant to the Advocate's notice dated 12.12.2011 issued on behalf of Richpal Saini son of Bishna Ram Saini and others alleging such illegalities. The purchasers i.e. the writ petitioners submitted a representation before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh refuting the above imputations contending inter alia that the Trust was a registered body and that in terms of Clause 23 of the Trust deed dated 29.1.1973, the Trustees were entitled to effect such sale. Clause 23 of the Trust deed was quoted as hereinbelow: - The trustees shall be entitled to sell any of the immoveable property or portion thereof of the trust for the benefit of the trust and for improvement of the trust fund and property only. The trustees shall be entitled to donate any portion or part of the property for any general public utility purposes. It was asserted as well that the sale had been made for the benefit of the Trust and that no provision of the Act had been violated. The Tehsildar, Nawalgarh, in his report dated 10.1.2012, following a survey of the land involved, endorsed the plea of the purchasers and recorded that for the transaction no permission under Section 31 of the Act was necessary. Incidentally on 27.1.2012, the complainants informed in writing to the Sub Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh that they did not intend to pursue their objection to the validity of the sale of the land by the Trust. They mentioned further that the purchasers had provided a way for access to the cremation ground and requested the said authority not to take further steps on the legal notice.
(3.) SUBSEQUENT thereto, on 1.2.2012, the writ petitioners (purchasers) applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information from the Office of the Sub Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh to disclose the legal provision under which the direction to maintain status quo of the land had been issued. As it transpired that the Sub Divisional Officer, Nawalgarh had intervened under the impression that Section 31 of the Act had been contravened and that he had referred the matter to the concerned Assistant Legal Remembrancer to advise the next step, the petitioners sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court for redress as the order of status quo of their land continued to be in force.;