( 1 ) A vacant site measuring 40' x 50' belongs to Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple, east Park Road, Maheswaram, Bangalore. It is a muzrai institution. The Commissioner for Rehgrous and Charitable Endowments in karnataka, ordered that the site should be leased to respondent-2 for 20 years on payment of ground rent of Rs. 1,500 per annum. But the Revenue appellate Tribunal has set aside the said order on the sole ground that the lease had no previous approval of the State Govt as required under S. 9 (2) of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927, (called shortly as 'the Act' ). The State in this writ petition under Art. 227, has challenged the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) SECTION 9 (2) of the Act provides :" No lease of a property belonging to a Muzrai Institution for a term exceeding five years shall be valid unless previously approved by the Govt or by such officer as may be empowered by the Govt in this behalf. "the sub-section plainly prohibits the lease of a property belonging to muzrai Institutions for a term beyond five years without the previous approval of the Govt or by such officer as may be empowered by the Govt in that behalf. If the present lease has no such approval, it must be held to be invalid. ( 3 ) BUT, for the State, an ancient order was relied upon in support of the contention that the Commissioner had the requisite prior approval for leasing the said site for 20 years. It was an order made by the Govt of his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore on 30-11-1944 and reads as follows : " S. O. Govt of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore general and Revenue Depts. G. O. No. R. 3766-78 Muz. 62-44-2, d|. 30th November 1944. Additional powers to the Muzrai Commr and the Deputy Commrs of Districts. Delegates- head- correspondence ending with letter No. Nl. C. 416-43-44, dj. 23rd august 1944, from the Muzrai Commr in Mysore, submitted for sanction certain proposals regarding the delegation of more powers to him and the Deputy Commrs of Dists as Muzrai Officers and the continuance of certain periodical returns of the Department. Order No. R. 3766-78 Muz 62-44-2, d|. Bangalore 30th Nov 1944. C. 416-43-44, dj. 23rd august 1944, from the Muzrai Commr in Mysore, submitted for sanction certain proposals regarding the delegation of more powers to him and the Deputy Commrs of Dists as Muzrai Officers and the continuance of certain periodical returns of the Department. Order No. R. 3766-78 Muz 62-44-2, d|. Bangalore 30th Nov 1944. With a view to minimise correspondence and to expedite the disposal of cases, the Muzrai Commr was requested to examine the question of further decentralising work in the Dept and of the continuance or otherwise of the several periodical returns and Statements that are being received in the several offices of the Dept ana submit suitable proposals in this behalf for the consideration of Govt. He has accordingly forwarded proposals, in consultation with the Deputy commrs of Dists, on the following matters and solicits sanction thereto : (a) Enhancement of some of the existing powers and the delegation of new powers to the Muzrai Commr and the Deputy Commrs of districts. (b) Discontinuance of certain periodical returns, etc, (2) Govt have carefully considered these proposals and are pleased to sanction them as in the annexures to this Order. (3) Necessary amendments to the Rules under the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, will issue separately. Sd/. K. Subba Rao, secty to Govt, General Dept. " annexure-I to the said order enumerates the power of the Muzrai commr regarding the approval of leases in respect of the agricultural and non-agricultural lands. At SI. No. 12 herein, it was provided : " SI. No. 12. Officer: Muzrai Commissioner. Existing powers-May sanction leases of properties other than agricultural lands belonging to Muzrai Institutions for a period exceeding five years but not exceeding ten years, when the annual lease amount exceeds Rs. 500 (G. O. No. 1491-502-Muz. 156-39-1, d/. 16-1-40. Sanctioned powers-May sanction leases of properties other than agricultural lands belonging to Muzrai Institutions for a period exceeding 5 (five) years, but not exceeding 20 (twenty) years, when the annual lease amount exceeds Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred ). " it is evident from the above order, that the Muzrai Commr was given the power to sanction leases of non-agricultural lands up to a period of 20 years when the lease amount exceeds Rs. 500. It is not in dispute that this order is still in operation, although very rarely noticed. ( 4 ) BUT, Mr. " it is evident from the above order, that the Muzrai Commr was given the power to sanction leases of non-agricultural lands up to a period of 20 years when the lease amount exceeds Rs. 500. It is not in dispute that this order is still in operation, although very rarely noticed. ( 4 ) BUT, Mr. M. S. Gopal, learned Counsel for respondent-1 urged that the said Govt order specified only the authority to grant lease of the muzrai property and could not be construed to be a previous approval envisaged by S. 9 (2) of the Act. He said that in each and every case, wherever there is a proposal to lease a Muzrai property, the Commr or the competent authority must obtain a previous approval of the Govt. In support of the contention, he relied upon two decisions of this Court in Abdul azeez v. MRAT, Bangalore, WP. 406/62 d/. 2-9-64. and Honniah v. Hussain Sheriff, WP. 310j62 dj. 1-11-65. ( 5 ) IN both these cases a similar contention was upheld by this Court. But in my view, they are not of any assistance to the case on hand. In abdul Azeez's case (l), this Court considered the validity of an order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal whereby a Muzrai property was ordered to be leased for 20 years. This Court observed that the Tribunal did not obtain the previous approval of the Govt for its order and so it was set aside. In Honniah's case (2), a similar lease granted by the Tribunal was considered by this Court. Following the decision in Abdul Azeez's case (1), this Court reiterated that S. 9 (2) of the Act was mandatory and its contravention would invalidate the lease granted. In both these cases, the Govt order d|. 30-11-1944 did not come up for consideration. Even if it has come up for consideration, it had no application. The said Govt order did not aothorise the Tribunal to lease any Muzrai property. ( 6 ) NOW the question is whether the previous approval envisaged under S. 9 (2), should it be a specific approval to be obtained in every case, or a general approval of the State Govt a provided by tne said Govt order. I am inclined to the latter view. ( 6 ) NOW the question is whether the previous approval envisaged under S. 9 (2), should it be a specific approval to be obtained in every case, or a general approval of the State Govt a provided by tne said Govt order. I am inclined to the latter view. The said Govt Order not only specified the authority to grant lease, but also accorded general approval for such leases. The case nearest to the point is found in N. Raghauendra rao v. Deputy Commr, SK. , Mangalore, AIR. 1965 SC. 138. In that case a circular issued by the Central Govt relating to the conditions of service of the allottees was considertd by the Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the circular reads : ". . . . . . the question whether any protection should be given in respect of ruies and conditions applicable to Government servants affected by re-organisation immediately before the date of re-organisation in tne matter of travelling allowance, discipline, control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion was also considered. The Govt of India agreed with the view expressed on behalf of the State representatives that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of these conditions. " considering the scope of the said Circular, in the light of the proviso to S. 115 (7) ot the Scales Reorganisation Act, which is analogous to the provisions of S,9 (2) ot the Act, the Supreme Court observed : ". . . . . In our opinion, the setting in which the proviso to 3. 115 (7) is placed, the expulsion ' prevrous approval' would include a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits, indicated by the Union Government. " the proviso to S. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act provides that the conditions of service applicable immedately to the allottees before the appointed day shall not be varied to their disadvantage except with the prevrous approval of the Central Govt. The Supreme Court said that that Circular of the Central Govt could operate as previous approval as required under Section 115 (7 ). In the instant case also, by reason of the Govt Order d/. 30-11-1and44, the Muzrai Commr must be held to have the previous approval to lease the site in question for 20 years since the annual lease amount exceeds rs. In the instant case also, by reason of the Govt Order d/. 30-11-1and44, the Muzrai Commr must be held to have the previous approval to lease the site in question for 20 years since the annual lease amount exceeds rs. 500. ( 7 ) IN the view that I have taken, the order of the Tribunal falls to be set aside. But Mr. Gopal submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the other contentions urged" for the appellant and the matter must be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of those questions. It seems to me that that contention is well-founded, although Mr. Ramakrishna, learned high Court Govt Pleader opposed the move. In para 3 of the order, the Tribunal has set out several contentions urged for the appellant. But, it has not considered them while disposing of the appeal. It has allowed the appeal on the sole ground that the Muzrai Commr did not obtain the previous approval of the Govt under S. 9 (2) of the Act. ( 8 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute. The order of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter stands remitted to the Tribunal for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of the receipt of this order. In the circumstances of the case, I make no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .