JUDGMENT:- Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard 2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 14/06/2010 passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur, by which the application under Section 36(1) (a) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. The subjectmatter of the application under Section 36(1) (a) of the said Act was land bearing field Survey No.101 of village Bamarda, Tq.Warora, Distt.Chandrapur. The said land was sought to be sold by the Trust on the ground that there is no yield from the land nor any income can be applied to the Trust and since Sabha Mandap and Deosthan were to be constructed, there was a necessity to sell the said land. 3. Pursuant to the tenders invited, the Trustee concerned received three tenders wherein the highest price offered by the bidder was Rs.10, 00,000/- It was, therefore, the case of the Trustee that transaction is in the interest and benefit of the Trust. 4. The said application was considered by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and, as indicated above, by the impugned order came to be rejected. The said application has been rejected inter alia on the ground that neither a copy of Scheme nor instrument of Trust was placed on record. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner also observed that though the land in question has come to the Trust by way of giftdeed, the giftdeed was also not produced and in the absence of the giftdeed it was not possible to ascertain whether the done has imposed any condition for alienation of the land. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that if such restriction is imposed, then the wishes of the donor will have to be respected. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that in the absence of the said document it is not possible to accept the proposal for grant of permission to sell the land. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent 6. The learned Joint Charity Commissioner was of the view that in the absence of the said document it is not possible to accept the proposal for grant of permission to sell the land. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in an application under Section 36(1) (a) of the Act what is material is the necessity of the Trust to sell the land and that the property in question fetches the market price. In the instant case, the learned counsel contended that highest tender received was for Rs.10, 00,000/- which, as per the say of the subRegistrar, was an adequate price, and considering the fact that the expenditure for construction of Sabha Mandap and Deosthan was Rs.6.84 lakhs, the sale of the said property was in the interest of the Trust. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J.792 in the matter of Suburban Education Society, Mumbai and anr. Vs. Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra State, Mumbai and ors. Wherein the scope of Section 36(1) (a) of the Act has been expounded by the Division Bench. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned AGP that in the absence of the said documents which have been referred to in the impugned order, the consideration of the application was not possible. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions, in my view, the order passed by the learned Joint Charity Commissioner cannot be faulted with. As mentioned herein above, the application was one under Section 36(1) (a) of the Act. The least that was expected of the Trustee was to place the Scheme of the Trust on record and also to point out as to how the said property has become the Trust property. As mentioned herein above, the application was one under Section 36(1) (a) of the Act. The least that was expected of the Trustee was to place the Scheme of the Trust on record and also to point out as to how the said property has become the Trust property. More so, in the context of the fact that it was the case of the Trustee that the property had devolved upon the trust by virtue of the gift deed, the learned Joint Charity Commissioner was, therefore, right in observing that since the property had come by way of giftdeed then the sentiment of the donor would have to be respected and if there is any restriction on the alienation of the land, the same would have to be observed. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for with the impugned order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. Petition dismissed.