JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereunder allowing the writ petition filed by the Deity/temple, the respondent herein, and quashing the notification for auction of its agricultural holdings, directions had been issued requiring the present appellants to frame the rules about the Aukaf properties as well as properties of other Deity/Temple, the respondents in the writ petition have come up in Letters Patent Appeal seeking redress praying for the reversal of the impugned order. We have heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellants and have carefully perused the record. The facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The Writ Petition giving rise to this appeal related to the property of the Idol/Mandir Shri Khande Rao which felt aggrieved by the action taken by the collector of the district directing for the auction of the agricultural holdings of the respondent/temple/Deity recorded to be in its occupation as Muafidar/Bhumiswami in the revenue records and the directions issued under the aforesaid order regarding the disposal of the income derived from the auction. The proposed auction and the other directions purported to be in regard to the management of the land attached to the Temples. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances brought on record and the implications arising under various provisions contained in Qawaid Muafidaran Jujbe Araji, Samvat 1991 (Gwalior), and Qanoon Mal, Samvat 1983 (Gwalior) and various other orders issued by the Commissioner and the President of Aukaf Board of Trustees, came to the conclusion that the properties attached to the temple could not be auctioned by the State Government by taking the management in its hand unless some Rules and Regulations are framed for the management of the temple and for the benefit of the estate of the temple. Drawing support from the decision of this Court rendered by a Division Bench in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyamdas and others reported in 7999 RN 25, in regard to the rights available to a Pujari it was found that appointment of Pujari and the management of temple could be done by the State by framing Rules and Regulations according to law in order to ensure proper utilisation of the income of the properties for its upkeep and for the benefit of its estate and further to prevent waste/mismanagement of the properties/agricultural holdings and their unauthorised alienation. The learned Single Judge considering the gravity of the situation and the magnitude of the recurring loss, taking into account the vast properties recorded in the name of the Deity/Temple was of the view that the Government should frame effective laws with an intention to have effective control of the agricultural holdings in order to protect the same and the other moveable properties of the temple/or under Aukaf department for utilisation of its income for up-keep of the temples and other related matters and issued certain directions requiring the appellants to frame Rules about the Aukaf properties as well as other properties. The necessity for issuing the directions as noticed in the judgment arose since the State could not point out; any law whereby the properties in question could be auctioned by it. The learned single Judge while quashing the order regarding auction of the temple properties issued the aforesaid directions to the Government requiring it to frame the Rules making it clear that while doing so the Government shall also examine the nature of the temples and in case it was found that the temple was public temple and was not within the Aukaf department and was also not registered as Public Trust, the Registrar of Public Trusts shall initiate the proceedings in accordance with law for registration of the trust and appoint trustees with an object to save the properties of the temple. It may be noticed that in its decision in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyam and others (supra) while noticing the implications arising under Regulation 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran, referred to hereinabove, the Division Bench had made observations to the following effect:- ..... It may be noticed that in its decision in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyam and others (supra) while noticing the implications arising under Regulation 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran, referred to hereinabove, the Division Bench had made observations to the following effect:- ..... In the Regulations, there are two types of Muafis, namely, 'Sanad-Kamil' and 'Sanad Nakis' "Sanad Kamil" is the grant by the ex-ruler of Gwalior State for religious purpose, and Sanad Nakis is treated to be a defective grant and not granted by the Government of Scindia. Muafi was of five types, namely, Dharmada, Nankar, Bagat, Devasthani, and Chakrana. Regulation No. 12 relates to Devsthani Muafi of Sanad Kamil. The condition was that Muafi will be recorded in the name of Devsthan or Peersthan i.e. in the name of temple or its deity. The Pujari's name will be recorded as Muafidar on the condition that he is competent to perform the functions of Pujari. If the Pujari is not competent to perform the functions of Pujari, his nearest heir who is competent to perform the functions of Pujari shall be nominated as Pujari. If on the death of Pujari his heir is minor then till he attains majority and is competent to perform the functions of Pujari, and other competent person shall be appointed to perform the functions of Pujari. It was further indicated that - ...Similarly, Regulation 13 of the Regulations relates to Sanad Nakis and those properties which were of defective grants had fallen in the hands of the Department of Aukaf. Aukaf means religious endowment. The department of religious endowment by the name of Aukaf Department was constituted by the Government of Scindia,..... The Division Bench of this Court in its aforesaid decision had held that it was the settled position that in the religious endowments the Rulers exercised their power of superintendence though the management vested with Pujari, who had no right to alienate the properties of the temple. They had to cultivate the land or got the land cultivated through their servants for the maintenance of the temple and its daily rituals, and did not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple. They had to cultivate the land or got the land cultivated through their servants for the maintenance of the temple and its daily rituals, and did not acquire any right to alienate the property of the temple. The Division Bench had further come to the conclusion in its aforesaid decision after taking into account the implications arising under Regulations 12 and 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran that the rights of Pujaris were not proprietory rights and no right stood conferred on them under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code and their status was no more than that of a Manager and they could hold this post only subject to certain conditions. No Pujari, trustee or Manager could claim title to the property vesting in the temple. It was made clear that the property always belonged to the temple i.e., the Deity. However, the Division Bench had made it clear that the Government had always the right to issue directions or preparing the norms for preserving the property of the Deity and a direction had been issued requiring the State Government for deleting the name of the Pujari from all the columns of the Khasra with a further direction that it should not be recorded anywhere. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the learned Single Judge had exceeded the jurisdiction while issuing the impugned directions as the State Government was free to take action under the Qawaid Muafidaran as the provisions contained therein vested the State Government with ample jurisdiction to take recourse to auction the cultivatory rights in respect of the agricultural holdings vesting in the Idol/attached to the temple subject to conditions ensuring prevention of the accrual of any tenural rights as recognised under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code in favour of the person whose bid was accepted. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of his above submissions has placed strong reliance on Regulation 13 of the Qawaid Muafidaran, referred to hereinabove, which is reproduced hereunder: It may be noticed, at this stage, that in its decision in the case of State of M.P. vs. Ghanshyamdas and others (supra) the Division Bench of this Court had observed that "the Regulations 12 and 13 of the Regulations were plain and simple and must receive its legal meaning." A perusal of the provision contained in Regulation 13, referred to hereinabove, clearly indicates the conditions subject to which the nature of the Muafi could be altered and the department of Aukaf was to get authorised to take over the custody of the management of the Muafi properties of the Devasthan attached to the temple/Devasthan whereafter the revenue entries relating to the agricultural holdings were to indicate the holdings as vesting in the State under the management of the department of "Aukaf". Further the aforesaid provisions restrict the rights of the Pujari or Mujabir of the Devasthan and the rights vesting in the Aukaf department in regard to the removal of a Pujari and appointment of another Pujari or Mujabir who was to be given a lease with restricted/limited rights. We are of the considered opinion that the provisions contained in Regulation 13 clearly envisaged the continuance of the Muafi and the rights vesting in the deity in respect of its properties including the agricultural holdings till the vesting of the ownership thereof in the State under the Management of its department of "Aukaf" relating to 'Devasthan'. It is obvious, therefore, that so long as the rights of Muafidar were not extinguished vesting the properties including the agricultural holdings in the State and the revenue records were corrected showing the same as 'Milkiat Sarkar' under the management of department of Aukaf relating to Devasthan there could be no occasion for interfering in the management of the holdings/lands vesting in the Deity/Devasthan in any manner including the grant of temporary leases for the purpose of cultivation taking recourse to auction treating the holdings of the deity as 'Milkiat Sarkar' even though none of the conditions contemplated under Regulation 13 stood satisfied. The learned counsel for the appellants has stated that so far, the agricultural holdings vesting in the Deity/Devasthan have not been vested in the State showing them to be 'Milkiat Sarkar' under the management of department of Aukaf relating to Devasthan. In such a circumstance, taking into consideration the gravity of the situation and the large extent of the temple properties, in order to protect the interest of the Deity/Devasthan and to ensure effective management for carrying out the object of the Muafi, in the absence of any Rule or Regulation having force of law, sufficient ground had been made out for the issuance of the impugned directions in the Public interest. Learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out or demonstrate that the facts noticed in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge were not borne out from the record. The only contention urged in support of the appeal, noticed hereinabove, does not bear scrutiny and being devoid of merits is not at all acceptable. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record including those noticed in the impugned judgment we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge could not be taken to have exceeded the jurisdiction while issuing the impugned directions. No other point has been pressed. In view of our conclusions indicated hereinabove this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed