JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking compliance of provisions of Section 72 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 ('the Act') has been rejected by the trial court. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction aggrieved against the cancellation of land allotted to it. The petitioner filed written statement, whereafter the present application was filed. The averments contained in the application reads as under:- " mDr 'kh"kZd ds izdj.k esa vkt dh rkjh[k is'kh fuf'pr gSA izfroknh@vizkFkhZ i{k vius leLr fof/kd o rF;kRed vf/kdkjksa dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, ,rn}kjk fuosnu djrk gS fd bl izdj.k esa oknh@izkFkhZ i{k us Lo;a dks yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr iathd'r V~LV gksuk O;Dr djrs gq, dfFkr V~LV MhM ds vk/kkj ij nkok is'k fd;k gS ftlesa V~LV cukus ds mn~ns'; o mu mn~ns';ksa o iz;kstuksa ds fy, Hkwfe vkoafVr fd;k x;k gksuk nkok esa of.kZr rF;ksa ls izdV gksrk gS] muds laca/k esa leLr vf/kdkjksa dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq, izfroknh i{k ,rn~}kjk fuosnu djrk gS fd yksd U;kl vf/kfu;e dh/kkjk 72 dh ikyuk ds vHkko esa nkok esa vkxs dk;Zokgh iks"k.kh; ugha gSA " 3. The application was opposed by the plaintiff inter-alia indicating that suit did not involve question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose. 4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that looking to the nature of the suit, same did not involve question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose and consequently, dismissed the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the land in question was allotted for the purpose of setting up of a school, the purpose for which the land was allotted is a public purpose and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner should have been accepted by the trial court and rejection thereof is against express provisions of law. 6. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Madan Gopal v. Raja Pratap Singh : 1964 RLW 78. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. 6. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Madan Gopal v. Raja Pratap Singh : 1964 RLW 78. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Section 72 of the Act reads as under:- "Sec. 72 - Proceedings involving question affection public purpose: (1) In any suit or legal proceeding in which it appears to the court that any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose is involved, the court shall not proceed to determine such question until after a notice has been sent to the Commissioner. (2) If upon receipt of such notice or otherwise the Commissioner makes any application in that behalf he shall be added as a party at any stage of such suit or proceedings." 9. A bare look at the provisions reveals that in any suit or legal proceedings, in which it appears to the Court that any question affecting a public religious or charitable purpose is involved, it is incumbent for the Court not to proceed to determine such question until after a notice has been sent to the Commissioner, Devasthan. 10. In the present matter, the dispute pertains to the allotment of land to the plaintiff-trust, which is a public trust and its cancellation by the petitioner. The issue involved in the suit, cannot be said to involve any question affecting public religious or charitable purpose so as to attract applicability of provisions of Section 72 of the Act. 11. Besides the above, even in the application filed by the petitioner except for referring to provision of Section 72, no averment regarding applicability of the provision has been made in the application. 12. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Gopal (supra) is concerned, the dispute pertained to the right of worship, repairs & addition and alterations to the property belonging to a public trust and in those circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that the question affecting a religious trust was involved, the law laid down in the said judgment has apparently no application to the facts of the present case. 13. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. 13. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that that in case, the Commissioner decides to file application under Section 72(2) of the Act, the same shall be decided by the trial court on its own merits unaffected by the observations made herein-before.Petition dismissed. *******