ORDER CAs Nos. 8661-62 of 2003 1. The subject-matter of the appeals relates to an order passed by the High Court arising out of the proceedings initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). These proceedings were initially initiated by Respondents 7 to 18 who are all trustees of M/s Ramgufa Ramji Mandir Trust at Mathawada, Ta Talaja, Gujarat. Their application was based on the ground that the property in question belonged to them and not to the Trust. Their application was allowed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner. The decision of the Assistant Charity Commissioner was challenged under Section 70 of the Act by one Uday Kumar H. Dave, an Advocate who claimed to be a worshipper of the deity in respect of which the Trust has been set up. The Joint Charity Commissioner dismissed his appeal. He filed a further appeal before the District Court under Section 72(1) of the Act. The appeal was dismissed. He then filed a further appeal under Section 72(4) of the Act before the High Court. During the pendency of the first appeal, the said Uday Kumar H. Dave filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, for a declaration that the lands in question belonged to the Trust and the amount of compensation deposited before the District Court at Bhavnagar by reason of the acquisition of the disputed land by the Gujarat Maritime Board should either be forfeited to the Government or to the Trust and not be given to Respondents 7 to 18. A prayer was also made to restrain the District Court, Bhavnagar from proceeding with the disbursement of the compensation a amount which has been deposited by the Gujarat Maritime Board in respect of the acquired lands. 2. In the meanwhile, the lands, prior to their acquisition had been sold by Respondents 7 to 18 to the appellant and the appellants had paid the consideration there for to Respondents 7 to 18 being amounts of Rs 4,10,50,000 in CA No. 8662 of 2003 and Rs 56,650 in CA No. 8661 of b 2003. 3. It is also to be noted that a suit had been filed by certain persons in a representative capacity claiming, inter alia, that the property in question belonged to the Trust. That suit was also pending. 4. 3. It is also to be noted that a suit had been filed by certain persons in a representative capacity claiming, inter alia, that the property in question belonged to the Trust. That suit was also pending. 4. The High Court allowed the writ application and directed that the amount of compensation should be forfeited by the Government and that C Respondents 7 to 18 had no title to the land in question which would enable them to apply under Section 22-A of the 1950 Act. The High Court summarised its findings as under: "(i) Once the lands in question were public trust properties, the same having been acquired for the public purpose, the compensation should go d only to the temple or should be forfeited by the Government. (ii) Respondents 7 to 18 had no title to the land in question which would enable them to apply under Section 22-A of the BPT Act. (iii) The Assistant Charity Commissioner, in the aforesaid circumstances, could not have entertained the application under Section 22-A either on facts or in law. (iv) The lands in question were exempted under the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act and the effect of declaration made by late Narbheram/late Durlabhram has not been taken into consideration by authority while dealing with the application under Section 22-A of the Act. (v) The original grant made by the then State of Bhavnagar has been f ignored without any valid reason. (vi) The occupancy certificate under the Barkhali Abolition Act specifically described the lands as 'Ramgufa Ange' and this description cannot be ignored, more so, in the light of the scheme of the Barkhali Abolition Act discussed hereinbefore." 5. The High Court also held that the entire proceedings initiated under 9 Section 22-A of the 1950 Act were bad in law. The orders of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as the District Judge were quashed. The first appeal preferred by the said Dave was declared to have become infructuous. A declaration was given to the effect that all other related proceedings before any forum in relation to the disputed lands except the land Reference No. 20 of 1998 (sic) shall be treated as infructuous and be disposed of accordingly by the respective forum". 6. The first appeal preferred by the said Dave was declared to have become infructuous. A declaration was given to the effect that all other related proceedings before any forum in relation to the disputed lands except the land Reference No. 20 of 1998 (sic) shall be treated as infructuous and be disposed of accordingly by the respective forum". 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the entire issue was decided without the appellants being made a party to the proceedings. This is not disputed. Various other questions as to the maintainability of the proceedings before the High Court were also raised by the appellants. It was also argued that the High Court was entirely wrong in passing the order it did. We do not wish to go into the merits of the High Court's decision. We set aside the decision of the High Court solely on the ground that the appellants were not party thereto. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for rehearing of the matter after notice to the parties hereto including the Gujarat Maritime Board and the Joint Charity Commissioner. All issues raised are left open. 7. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs. CA No. 1770 of 2002 8. A limited notice was issued by this Court on the special leave petition filed by the appellants who are Respondents 7 to 18. The notice was to the effect that the compensation in question should not be forfeited to the Government but should go to the Trust. It was admitted in the appellants' rejoinder that the issue whether the Trust should get the compensation had been concluded by this Court. Therefore the issue as far as these appellants are concerned as to their interest as individuals is concluded. Besides the appellants having sold their interest in the land to the appellants in CAs Nos. 8661-62 of 2003 they have no further interest. However we make it clear that the order on the notice issued in CA No. 1770 of 2002 does not in any manner bind the appellants in CAs Nos. 8661-62 of 2003. The civil appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 9. The applications for impleadment are allowed.