ORDER : 1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-state. 2. This petition is filed under Article-226 of the Constitution of India is challenging the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal by which the Tribunal had quashed and set aside the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner, Rajkot, which was in exercise of powers under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act. 3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the property of the Trust was occupied by certain tenants and Trust was not deriving any benefits of such property. Theretofore, deciding to sale of the property of the Trust made an application under Section-36 before the Joint Charity Commissioner. Joint Charity Commissioner by its order dated 19-06-2013 had granted permission under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act and stipulated several conditions. Such order was challenged by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that grounds of challenge is existence of previous Agreement to Sale of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only of the same property and subsequent Agreement to Sale granted by the Joint Charity Commissioner under Section-36 was only for Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners challenges the order of Gujarat Revenue Tribunal on the grounds of locus as according to the petitioners even if the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are considering to be tenants, still they have no locus to challenge the order of the Joint Charity Commissioner. 6. Learned Advocate submitted that challenge made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was after delay of 286 days. Such delay was never explained by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 nor any reference is made accepting the explanation for delay in the impugned order. It is submitted that as per the order sanctioned by the Joint Charity Commissioner, procedure was undertaken including issuance of Public Notice. However, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 though aware of all the proceedings, having challenged the same within stipulated period. 7. It is lastly submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are merely busy body to obstruct ongoing translation of sale of the Trust property after receiving due sanction. However, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 though aware of all the proceedings, having challenged the same within stipulated period. 7. It is lastly submitted that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are merely busy body to obstruct ongoing translation of sale of the Trust property after receiving due sanction. He relies upon the decision of this Court in the cases of (1) Saurashtra Rachanatmak Samiti, Rajkot v/s. State of Gujarat, (2) Upendrabhai Shantilal Maniar v/s. Sheth Shri Morarjibhai Dhanjibhai Padiya Brahmmakshtriya Boarding Trust and Anr., and (3) Raghavjibhai Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. v/s. Amroli Anjuman Fund Thr. Trustee & Ors. 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that application under Section-36 does not serve the interest of the Trust, as just power seeking sanction on the Agreement to sale. Sale-deed registered on 14th August, 2013. The very Trust had entered into Agreement to Sale with one Kamalgar Nirmalgar Gunsai on 17-08-2011. Learned Advocate has brought for perusal both these documents and submitted that the Sale-deed of 2013 is for consideration of Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only, whereas the Agreement to Sale which is prior point of time, consideration for the same land is to the tune of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only and for that advance amount of Rupees Five Lakhs only were paid to the Trustees. 9. It is submitted that when the property can fetch Rupees Fifty Lakhs only, the Sale-deed for Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only can never said to be interest of the Trust. Answering the contention of the petitioners about locus, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Cyrus Rustom Patel V/s. Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State & Ors., reported in 2018 (14) SCC 761 stating that when the action under Section-36 is under challenge, locus of tenants cannot be obstruction to such challenge. Meaning thereby, the tenant can challenge as his interest is involved. 10. Learned Advocate submitted that even today, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are ready and willing to offer the good value for the land, if the chances are given to them. 11. Learned Advocate, Mr. Siraj Gori for the respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No.5 is only formal party. 10. Learned Advocate submitted that even today, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are ready and willing to offer the good value for the land, if the chances are given to them. 11. Learned Advocate, Mr. Siraj Gori for the respondent No.5 submitted that the respondent No.5 is only formal party. However, at the same time, he submitted that the interest of the Trust is paramount and therefore, the decision of the Trust to give property for sale for commercial reasons is not in furtherance with the interest of the petitioners- Trust. 12. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties and having perused the documents on record, it appears that the application under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act was filed by the petitioners- Trust namely Naganathji Mandir, Mandavi, Kutchh, having its being registered as Public Trust under Bombay Public Trust Act and having Registration No. A-1120/Kutchh. In the application, under Section-36, the Trust has narrated its case as under: “The applicant trust has submitted in the application for sale of the property that, Shri Satishkumar Shantilal Mehta has been in occupancy of some part of the land of above mentioned survey number as a tenant with monthly rent of Rs.251/- since last 25 years. He has set up a factory in the open land. He has illegally permitted Dataniya Virchand Jesan to construct a hut on the land without permission of the trusties. Trust is not getting any income from it. Sunita alias Vasantben Gordhandas Thakkar has been in occupancy of some part of the land of above mentioned survey number as a tenant with monthly rent of Rs.300/- since last 13 years. She is not carrying out any work on the land since many years. Therefore, she has been repeatedly instructed to vacate the land, but she has not complied to date. Bharatgar Prangar Goswami has set up a house and a courtyard on some part of the above mentioned land and he is in occupancy of the land personally. The trust is not getting any income from it. Monthly rent of Rs.551/- and annual rent of Rs.6612/- are received from this property. The land yields nominal income. It may cost a large expense to evict the above mentioned 4 persons from the land, which is not affordable considering nominal income of the temple. It takes a lot of time to evacuate in such a manner. Monthly rent of Rs.551/- and annual rent of Rs.6612/- are received from this property. The land yields nominal income. It may cost a large expense to evict the above mentioned 4 persons from the land, which is not affordable considering nominal income of the temple. It takes a lot of time to evacuate in such a manner. Under such circumstances, the devotees to our temple and members of our community Smt. Jayshreeben Praful Goswami and Kamalgar Nirmalgar Gusai have placed an offer before our trust. The offer is totally in interest of the trust as well as the members of our Goswami community. Because, the persons in possession of this land for years do not have intension to vacate it. The trust earns a little income from them which is not at all useful to maintain the temple in times of such increase in dearness. To evacuate them from the land, huge amount and years long courts proceedings are needed which the trustees are not at all capable of. On accepting aforesaid offer, regular income, sufficient enough to maintain the temple in good condition, can be generated. It will also provide facility of residential houses to 35 to 40 families of the society which may prove to be a blessing for poor and needy families of the society. Hence, the sale is totally in interest of the trust. Therefore, it has been requested to grant permission to sell in the best interest of trust.” 13. If the pleadings of the application is to be perused, it is evident that the persons who were occupying as tenants are Satishkumar Shantilal Mehta, Virchand Jesang Dataniya, Sunita Gordhandas Thakkar. Parties as narrated was also for creating the residential accommodation for Community which was maintaining the Trust and the temple. The Order was passed on 19-06-2013 by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner stipulated several conditions. It is not the case of any of the parties that the Trust is in breach of such conditions stipulated. 14. Learned AGP has produced before the Court File in original. The File contains the Public Advertisement issued by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner in local newspaper on 18-05-2013. In this Public Advertisement, there does not appear to be any objection received by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is thereafter, period of almost 286 days that the respondent Nos. 14. Learned AGP has produced before the Court File in original. The File contains the Public Advertisement issued by the In-charge Joint Charity Commissioner in local newspaper on 18-05-2013. In this Public Advertisement, there does not appear to be any objection received by the Joint Charity Commissioner. It is thereafter, period of almost 286 days that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed an Appeal No.6 of 2014 before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. From the order of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, it is not coming out clearly as to in what capacity, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have preferred an appeal. Two documents being Agreement to Sale dated 17-08-2011 between Kamalgar Nirmalgar Gunsai and the Trust for consideration of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only, also does not refer to four tenants namely Bharatgar Prangar Goswami, Virchand Jesang Dataniya, Sujata Gordhandas Thakkar and Satishkumar Shantilal Mehta, Sale-deed of 2013, though referred to tenants, but the same does not mention the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 to be tenants of the Trust and occupiers who are again Satishkumar Shantilal Mehta, Virchand Jesang Dataniya, Sunita Gordhandas Thakkar and Bharatgar Prangar Goswami. The copies of these documents are produced on record and with the consent of all concerned, same are taken on record. 15. The Court is therefore of the view that from the pleadings before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, respondent Nos.3 and 4 have failed to establish themselves as tenants and therefore, locus of respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be established. Despite this, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has proceeded to assume the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as accepted tenants of petitioners-Trust and proceed to deal with an Appeal. In absence of anything on record, even before this Court, the Court cannot accept the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as tenants and this having locus to prefer an appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Judgment relied upon by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 in case of Cyrus Rustom Patel (supra), it is clearly the judgment, wherein locus standie in case of application under Section-36 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, the tenant in the appropriate will have the same say. 16. The issue with regard to the variation in price from Rupees Fifty Lakhs only to Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only is based on two documents produced by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 today. 16. The issue with regard to the variation in price from Rupees Fifty Lakhs only to Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only is based on two documents produced by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 today. If the recitals of both documents that is to say the Agreement to Sale of 2011 for consideration of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only and Sale-deed of 2013 for consideration of Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only, then as per the Sale-deed, which was conditional. There was covenant developing 35 residential premises for the benefit of the Community Members, who are maintaining the Temple. Obviously, when burden of construction of such residential premises is to be born by the purchaser, there has to be substantial reduction in the consideration as well. 17. The Court therefore, does not find that by reducing the amount of Rupees Fifty Lakhs only to Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only along with stipulated conditions of Sale-deed, interest of the petitioners-Trust is not protected. 18. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.5 submitted that with regard to the petitioner-Trust being religious endowment, the same has never been raised at any stage before the previous forum nor today, the respondent No.5 has been able to produce anything on record with regard to objections of the Trust. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to dwell further contention raised by the respondent No.5. 19. The Court has also considering the fact that procedure adopted for while grant sanction under Section-36 is fair and transparent. Public Advertisement as mentioned herein above, was issued before entering into the Sale-deed between the petitioners- Trust and successful purchaser. Such advertisement was issued well in time to which no objection has been received. Valuation Report was also taken into consideration, which indicates that value of the property at Rs.12,34,200/- only. Such Valuation report is on record at Annexure-B. Thereafter period of 286 days, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 preferred an Appeal before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. Perusal of the order as well as the pleadings did not indicate the reasons why the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not objected to the public advertisement and as explanation for delay of 286 days. The Court finds that from the date of order of the Charity Commissioner to the date on which when the respondent Nos. Perusal of the order as well as the pleadings did not indicate the reasons why the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not objected to the public advertisement and as explanation for delay of 286 days. The Court finds that from the date of order of the Charity Commissioner to the date on which when the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had preferred an Appeal, the ground situation is substantially changed in view of the execution Sale-deed with regard to same property. Therefore, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal has fallen in error by not taking into consideration the delay aspect and dealing with the delay in preferring an Appeal. 20. For the forgoing reasons, impugned order dated 19-06- 2013 passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. AK/6/14 is quashed and set aside. 21. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.