1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1444 OF 2009 Madhav s/o Babaro Mukhedkar (Teli), Age: 57 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Katkalamba, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. ... Petitioner Versus Vitthal s/o Sheshrao Panpatte, Age: 54 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Katkalamba, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded and others. ...Respondents Mr. Vivek Dhage, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, Advocate holding for Mr. A.D. Bhurkapalle, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 8, 10, 11, 16 and 17. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 31st JULY, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the parties, this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of 2 admission. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 3. By this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner – original applicant is challenging the order dated 09-01-2009 passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Nanded Region, Nanded on Exhibit – 29 in Inquiry No. 704/2008. The petitioner filed application under Section 73A of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for adding and joining him as party to the proceedings. Brief facts of the matter are as under. 4. Shri Bhavani Mandir Trust is a registered Trust with the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner at Nanded. The respondents filed application under Section 50A (I) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 for framing scheme. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the 3 respondents / applicants have no any concern with the property of the father of the petitioner i.e. Inamdar of the property. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is concerned and interested person of the Inam land which is mentioned as the property of the trust. The villagers have falsely reported to the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the Inam property of the father and grand father of the petitioner is the property of the trust, with a view to grab the property intentionally for their interest and profit. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not interested person in the trust. The Assistant Charity Commissioner observed in the order that the petitioner has not mentioned that he daily attend service in the Bhavani Mandir and perform worship. The office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner in the year 1981 filed the inquiry report in which, it was mentioned that Pujari Baba Teli was living at Mukhed and left Katkalamba. Therefore, this itself shows that the petitioner is 4 not interested in day to day performance of Pooja Archana in Bhavani Mandir but he is interested only in the property i.e. Survey No. 81-A. For the purpose of declaration of title, the petitioner has already initiated the proceedings in the Civil Court as well as in Revenue Court. 6. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. (K.K. TATED,J.) sut/JUL09/wp1444.09