JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, a Trust established on 3.7.1928 is said to be carrying out various public charitable, religious, educational activities throughout the country including the places like Gaya, Haridwar, Calcutta, Chirawa, Nawalgarh etc. The trust established Rai Bahadur Seth Surajmal Shivprasad Ved Vedang Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Mahavidyalaya') at Chirawa in the year 1984 and the same was recognised by the State of Rajasthan through the Director, Sanskrit Education. The management committee of the Mahavidyalaya also received some aid from State Government for management of the institution. By an order dated 9.11.1990, the State Government on being satisfied that serious disputes exist in the management committee of the Mahavidyalaya, while exercising powers under Rule 3(7) of Grant In Aid Rules, 1963 appointed Deputy District Education Officer (Sanskrit), Bikaner as the Administrator for the Mahavidyalaya, accordingly management of the institution was taken over by the Administrator. The Trust, through its manager, submitted various representations for handing over management of Mahavidyalaya to the Trust again but of no consequence, however, by a gift deed dated 11.11.1999 the Administrator appointed under the order dated 9.11.1990 gifted entire immovable property of the Trust to the State Government, which was under possession of the Mahavidyalaya. The gift deed aforesaid was executed by the Head Master of the Mahavidyalaya in pursuance to instructions given by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan Jaipur on 6.10.1999. 2. Being aggrieved by acquisition of trust property by the State Government in the name of gift, this petition for writ is preferred. A challenge is also given by the petitioner to appointment of Administrator of the institution under the order dated 9.11.1990, but much stress is not given to that during the course of hearing. 3. The main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under the order dated 9.11.1990 the State Government while exercising powers under Rule 3(7) of the Rules of 1963 suspended management of the educational institution and an Administrator was appointed to manage the affairs of Mahavidyalaya, and as such, the Administrator was nothing but an alternative to the management committee. The management committee under the Rules of 1963 is empowered to manage and administer Mahavidyalaya's educational affairs and that is having no control over the trust property. As per the petitioner the acquisition of property by the State Government through a gift deed is having no authority of law. The management committee under the Rules of 1963 is empowered to manage and administer Mahavidyalaya's educational affairs and that is having no control over the trust property. As per the petitioner the acquisition of property by the State Government through a gift deed is having no authority of law. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the management of Mahavidyalaya failed to run the institution smoothly, and therefore, on receiving various complaints a decision was taken to appoint an Administrator in the month of October 1999. After appointment of Administrator no interest was taken by the Trust in managing day to day affairs of the institution and also the building, where the Mahavidyalaya is situated. Looking to poor condition of the building the Director Sanskrit Education desired to take over assets of the Mahavidyalaya for its proper management. As per the respondents the assets acquired having worth of Rs. 8,87,823/-, are the assets of Mahavidyalaya and not of the Trust.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. As stated earlier the main emphasis of the petitioner is with regard to acquisition of Trust property by the State Government through the gift deed dated 11.11.1999. It is stated that under the order dated 9.11.1990, the State Government appointed Administrator of the Mahavidyalaya as the managing committee was not properly functioning, thus, the management committee was suspended as per provisions of Rule 3(7) of the Rules of 1963. The Administrator, therefore, was having authority only to manage day to day affairs of the Mahavidyalaya and was not having any authority or title over the property and assets of the Trust. The gift deed, therefore, is absolutely without jurisdiction and beyond the authority of law. As per learned counsel for the petitioner the gift deed executed by Head Master of the Mahavidyalaya pursuant to the instructions given under the order dated 6.10.1999 is nothing but a flagrant violation of the constitutional right. of the petitioner enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counselor the State per contra asserted that the State Government being managing Mahavidyalaya since 1990, considered it appropriate to take over the property where the institution was running and that was done looking to the poor condition of the building where the educational activities are undertaken. of the petitioner enshrined under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counselor the State per contra asserted that the State Government being managing Mahavidyalaya since 1990, considered it appropriate to take over the property where the institution was running and that was done looking to the poor condition of the building where the educational activities are undertaken. Looking to need of security required, it was considered in public interest to take over the entire premises. 7. From perusal of entire record the position that emerges is that the property where the Mahavidyalaya is running is of the Trust and it was the Trust that decided to have Mahavidyalaya at its immovable property. The State Government in the year 1990 looking to ill management of Mahavidyalaya decided to take over management of the institution and at that time the existing management committee was suspended. True it is, the Administrator appointed by the Government is required to look-after the management and administration of the institute including-protection of the building, where the educational activities were going on, but merely by taking over management of the 'institution the title of the assets does not transfer. The title of the assets vests with the Trust and the Administrator at the most would have managed those in interest of day to day activities of Mahavidyalaya. The Administrator was having no authority to acquire entire property with him or to further transfer the same to the State Government. The immovable property of the Trust, therefore, has been erroneously transferred to the State Government by Head Master of the institution. It is well settled that acquisition of a property can be made only by authority of law that too by adhereing the procedure prescribed to do so. In the instant matter no such proceedings admittedly were conducted. 8. In view of it, the transfer of property made under the gift deed by the Head Master of the Mahavidyalaya is absolutely without authority of law, hence, this petition for writ deserves acceptance, and therefore, the same is allowed. The transfer of immovable assets of the petitioner trust under the gift deed 11.11.1999 which was executed pursuant to the directions given by the Director, Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 6.10.1999 is declared illegal, hence, quashed.No order as to costs.Writ petition Allowed. *******