ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the Petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records pertaining to the case of the Petitioners from the Respondents for its kind perusal. 1.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by Respondent Registrar and in effect allow the application of Petitioners filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951. 1.3 Cost of the proceedings. 1.4 Any other writs and directions that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. According to the pleadings of the Petitioners, Petitioner No. 1 is a Charitable Trust and is the owner of land bearing Khasra No. 107/3 & 108/3 area 0.40 & 0.922 hectares, total area 0.962 hectares, situated at adjacent to J.P. Verma College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur. The said land is situated on main road and because of its location and recent construction of over bridge etc./widening of road, the boundary wall protecting the said property has been demolished and certain part of the said property is exposed to public. The said property during last several years has not fetched any income which otherwise would have been fetched, therefore, Petitioner No. 1-trust has taken a decision on 20.06.2019 of selling the said property and on receipt of consideration, to purchase property in any rural area prospectively around 10 acres so that arrangement may be made for education and health of weaker section of society and also to construct school, college and hospital. Taking into consideration the above aspects of matter and other relevant aspects, an application under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act of 1951’) has been filed by the Petitioners and thereafter certain amendments have also been incorporated in the said application. Taking into consideration the above aspects of matter and other relevant aspects, an application under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act of 1951’) has been filed by the Petitioners and thereafter certain amendments have also been incorporated in the said application. Respondent No. 2 i.e. Registrar, Public Trust followed the unusual procedure by calling for a report from the Tahsildar and also from the Principal of J.P. Verma Government Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur which is altogether irrelevant for the purpose of decision of application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 and vide impugned order dated 05.08.2021, Respondent No. 2 the Registrar, Public Trust rejected the application filed by the Petitioners. Hence, the instant petition. 3. In their reply and rejoinder, Respondents No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 stated that the Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are neither the trustees under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951 nor could they have been nominated under the terms of trust deed, therefore, they have no locus to move the subject application as well as the instant petition. With regard to Kamal Bajaj, as per terms of the trust deed, he could have been nominated as one of the trustees together with the Respondents. Neither the Respondents have authorized nor has any resolution been passed in favour of Kamal Bajaj to act nor has he been nominated as Chairman of the trust and, therefore, his representation as chairman of the trust is illegal and unauthorized. The land in question were purchased in the name of trust way back in the year 1958. In the year 1972, the trust had decided to donate the land in question along with the other land to the management who was running the college, namely ‘Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal College’ (for short ‘SBR College’). The deed of transfer was executed and all the land were transferred in the name of State. Due to some inadvertence, the revenue records could not be corrected and the present land remains in the name of trust in the revenue records. By taking advantage of this omission, some persons including the Petitioners planned to grab this property in the name of trust and sell it out. The land is the part of a land which has been donated to the management of SBR College in the year 1972. By taking advantage of this omission, some persons including the Petitioners planned to grab this property in the name of trust and sell it out. The land is the part of a land which has been donated to the management of SBR College in the year 1972. This land is situated just in-front side of the college and only by this land there is access to the college. This land is being used as play ground and for other social activities by the College since last 50 years. With regard to the resolution dated 20.06.2019, it has been fraudulently passed by the unauthorized persons. Since 1944 to 2019 there was no change in the name of the trustees and suddenly in the year 2019, an application was moved to change the Chairman and thereafter suddenly the trust passed a resolution for selling out the land. Even before obtaining permission, advance money of Rs.34,00,000/- was also received by the Chairman and subsequently he transferred it in his own account. As the land is being used by the College as playground and for other social activities, permission to sell it out would prejudicially affect the functioning of the College. It is further stated that the application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 has been moved by the Petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur who has acted as ‘Registrar of Public Trust’ by virtue of the work alloted by the Collector under the work distribution memo i.e. Annexure R- 3/6. As contained in Section 34-A of the Act of 1951, the Registrar may, by order in writing, delegate his powers to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer. But, delegation on the basis of work distribution memo is not permissible which is contrary to the mandate of Section 34-A of the Act of 1951. 4. Respondents No. 1 & 2 have not filed reply. 5. Mr. B.P. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners referred to the provisions of Section 14(1) (a) (b) and (2) of the Act of 1951 and stated that from a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the Registrar is obliged to grant permission unless there is material that the sale proposal is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The Counsel further referred to Clause 3 (b) & (c) of the trust deed i.e. Annexure P-2. Further, referring to the object of the trust deed (Annexure P-2), it is submitted by Mr. B.P. Sharma that the object of the Petitioner trust is also to establish, maintain, and grant aid to hospitals, medical schools or college and other institutions for the relief of poor, sick and distressed persons of the country, to grant aid or relief on the occasion of earthquakes, floods and famines, to establish temple and other places of pilgrimage and public worship and to provide daily perpetual for the public. Thus, the object of the Petitioner trust is clear and when a decision with respect to sell off said property has been taken by the Petitioner trust in its meeting dated 20.06.2019, the Registrar was obliged to give credence to said proposal. There is nothing by which it can be said that the said proposal is prejudicial to the interests of public trust. Before the Registrar, the witnesses have also been examined, but, none of them have stated anything against the Petitioners by which it can be proved that the Petitioners are acting prejudicially to the interests of public trust. The application of the Petitioners has been rejected only on the ground that since the property is being used as playground by the students of J.P. Verma Government Arts and Commerce College for last 45-50 years, no useful purpose will be served in selling the land. The above finding of the Registrar regarding this aspect of the matter is contrary to intent of Section 14 of the Act of 1951. Merely on this ground, it can not be said that the sale of said property is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Registrar is not in accordance with law. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sharma on Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow vs. Sub Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts, 2022 SCC Online SC 104. 6. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 to 6 submitted that there is serious dispute between the Petitioners and these Respondents with regard to their nominations as trustees in the trust. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sharma on Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow vs. Sub Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts, 2022 SCC Online SC 104. 6. Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 3 to 6 submitted that there is serious dispute between the Petitioners and these Respondents with regard to their nominations as trustees in the trust. Since Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are neither the trustees under the provisions of the Act of 1951 nor could they have been nominated under the terms of the trust deed, therefore, they have no locus to file such application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 or to file the instant petition before this Court. Mr. Shrivastava referring to Section 3 of the Act of 1951 and submitted that as contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1951, the Collector shall be the Registrar of the Public Trust. Further referring to Section 34-A of the Act of 1951, it was argued by Mr. Shrivatava that though the Registrar have power to delegate his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, in this case delegation has been made by the Collector and not by the Registrar, Public Trusts by way of work distribution memo only. Relying the judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shri Deo Parasnathji Mousuna Ghanshyam Budhu Singhai vs. Kanhaiyalal Komal Chand, 1972 MPLJ 206 and the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court passed in M.P. No. 1209/1991 [Smt. Buddhibai vs. Registrar Public Trust-cum-SDO and Others] it was submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that unless and until a separate notification under Section 34-A of the Act 1951 is issued, the powers of the Registrar can not be delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer by work distribution memo and such SDO had no jurisdiction to perform his duties as the Registrar, Public Trusts. It is further submitted by Mr. Shrivastava that the above judgments which have been passed by the parent High Court i.e. Madhya Pradesh High Court prior to recognition that is prior to establishment of this High Court have binding effect to this Court. In this regard, reliance was placed by Mr. Shrivastava on State of Gujarat vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi, AIR 1962 Gujarat 128. Thus, it was argued by Mr. In this regard, reliance was placed by Mr. Shrivastava on State of Gujarat vs. Gordhandas Keshavji Gandhi, AIR 1962 Gujarat 128. Thus, it was argued by Mr. Shrivastava that the judgments passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court are required to be followed by this Court and if this Court considers it otherwise, the only course available to this Court is to refer the matter to Hon’ble The Chief Justice for constituting the larger Bench for reconsideration of the issue in terms of Rules 32 & 33 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Respondents No. 1 & 2 opposes the arguments raised on behalf of the Petitioners on the basis of the material available and submitted that the Registrar, Public Trust rightly rejected the application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951. 8. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, with utmost circumspection, perused the impugned order passed by the Registrar, also perused the reply and rejoinder filed by the parties and other documents available. 9. Before dealing with the issue, it would be appropriate to refer to some relevant provisions of the Act of 1951 which read as under: “Section 3: Registrar of public trusts: (1) The [Collector] shall be the Registrar of Public Trusts in respect of every public trust, the principal office or the principal place of business of which as declared in the application made under sub-section (3) of Section 4 is situated in his district. (2) The Registrar shall maintain a register of public trusts, and such other books and registers and in such form as may be prescribed. Section 14: Previous sanction of Registrar, in cases of sale, etc. of property belonging to a public trust: (1) Subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court: (a) no sale, mortgage, exchange or gift of any immovable property. (b) no lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non- agricultural land or building; belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar. (b) no lease for a period exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non- agricultural land or building; belonging to a public trust, shall be valid without the previous sanction of the Registrar. (2) The Registrar shall not refuse his sanction in respect of any transaction specified in sub-section (1) unless such transaction will, in this opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. Section 34-A: Delegation of powers by Registrar : Subject to the provisions of this Act and to such restrictions and conditions, as may be prescribed, the Registrar may, by order in writing delegate all or any of his powers and duties under this Act to any revenue officer of his district not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Officer.” 10. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant clauses of the trust deed (Annexure P-2), which read as under: “Clause 3: (b) To grant aid, to support, establish and maintain persons, societies and institutions including Schools, Colleges for promotion of Science, Literature, fine arts, education diffusion of useful knowledge and other objects and purposes for the diffusion, growth and advancement of education and culture, of the general public. (c) To establish, maintain, and grant aid to hospitals, medical schools or colleges and other institutions for the relief of the poor, sick and distressed persons in the country. Clause 9: (a) To manage the Trust Properties and to do all acts necessary for the preservation, maintenance and management of the Trust Estate and its affairs. (b) From time to time to vary the investments representing the trust properties or any part thereof or the income of the same as the Trustees may think fit and proper with full power and liberty to sell or otherwise deal with the corpus of the Trust properties. (c) To invest the income of the Trust properties not immediately required for the objects and purposes of the Trust. (c) To invest the income of the Trust properties not immediately required for the objects and purposes of the Trust. (d) The Trustees will be at liberty to invest and keep invested the Trust funds properties whether representing the corpus or income in such investments as they in their absolute discretion shall think fit and proper and in particular with full liberty and power to them to invest and keep invested the same either in purchase of immovable property or by granting loan on the security of immovable property or with any Firm or Company or in any property or any shares or debentures in any Company notwithstanding that any of the Trustees may be interested therein irrespective of the restrictions provided by the Indian Trustees Act or any other Act or Acts, Law or Laws in Force in British India or in any Indian States or by any Authorities or Government regarding the Powers of the Trustees to invest Trust Moneys or Trust properties.” 11. There is no dispute on the point that Petitioner No. 1 Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust is registered under the Chhattisgarh Public Trusts Act, 1951 on 13.07.1944. From perusal of the object of the trust deed, it is clear that object of the trust is also to establish and maintain schools, colleges and other institutions for the relief of poor and distressed persons. Clause 9 of the trust deed empowers the trustees and give them liberty to sell or otherwise deal with the corpus of the trust properties. In this case, resolution of the trust dated 20.06.2019 shows that the meeting was held on 20.06.2019 and the resolution was passed to sell the land in question total area 2.38 acres on the ground that the subject land is vacant since the date of purchase and the trust is paying the government taxes, audit fee and other expenditure for a long time and there is no income of the trust for several years and some portion of the land has been encroached by some persons. It was also mentioned that due to non-availability of funds, it is not possible for the trust to maintain the financial issues smoothly. 12. On the basis of said resolution, application (Annexure P-3) under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 was filed by the Petitioners before the Registrar. It was also mentioned that due to non-availability of funds, it is not possible for the trust to maintain the financial issues smoothly. 12. On the basis of said resolution, application (Annexure P-3) under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 was filed by the Petitioners before the Registrar. In the said application it was mentioned that back portion of the college property has been encroached by some persons and in near future there is a possibility of encroachment on the disputed land. It was further mentioned in the application that after selling the land in question, for fulfilling the object of the trust, consideration amount of the sale will be used for purchasing 10 acres of land in rural area wherein the trust will construct school, college, hospital etc. for the welfare of poor and distressed persons of the country. 13. From a bare perusal of the application, it is clear mentioned that for fulfilling the object of the trust like to construct school, college etc. land in question has to be sold. The said application has been rejected only on the ground that since the property belonging to the Petitioners is being used as playground by the students of J.P. Verma College for the last 45-50 years and no useful purpose will be is served in selling the property. 14. In Parsi Zoroastrian case (Supra), the Supreme Court held as under: “22. As can be seen by Section 14(1), previous sanction of the Registrar of public trusts is a precondition, for the (a) “sale, mortgage, exchange of gift of any immovable property” or (b) “lease for a period of exceeding seven years in the case of agricultural land or for a period exceeding three years in the case of non-agricultural land or building.” If Section 14(1) had stopped there, the embargo on alienation of the types enumerated in the provision (sale, gift, exchange, mortgage etc. or long-term lease(s) of agricultural or non-agricultural properties) i.e. obtaining previous sanction, could well have meant that the Registrar’s role was conceivably intrusive. However, the provisions of Section 14(1) and the power conferred on the Registrar under it, are controlled by Section 14(2) which states that the Registrar “shall not refuse his sanction” unless in his opinion the alienation, or transfer is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The clear reference in Section 14(2) is to power exercisable under Section 14(1). However, the provisions of Section 14(1) and the power conferred on the Registrar under it, are controlled by Section 14(2) which states that the Registrar “shall not refuse his sanction” unless in his opinion the alienation, or transfer is prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. The clear reference in Section 14(2) is to power exercisable under Section 14(1). The controlling expression in Section 14(1) significantly, is that previous sanction in respect of the two situations (i.e. alluded in clauses (a) and (b)) is “subject to the directions in the instrument of trust or any direction given under this or any other law by any Court.” This controlling or, rather opening words, clearly indicate that the grant or refusal of sanction by the Registrar have to be based on either “the directions in the instrument of trust” or “any direction given under this (i.e. M.P. Public Trusts Act) or any other law by any Court.” The discretion thus, is relatable to directions in the trust document, or any provision of the Act, or any other law as ordered (or directed) by any Court. Therefore, the Registrar, is not empowered to read into it her own notions of what is beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly stipulates so, or any specific provisions of the trust document.” 15. As observed by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the grant or refusal of the sanction by the Registrar has to be based on either the directions in the instrument of trust or any directions given under the Act of 1951 or any other law by any Court and the Registrar is not empowered to read into his own notions of what is beneficial and what is prejudicial to the trust. The refusal has to be specific to the requirement of law, wherever such law clearly stipulates so, or any specific provisions of the trust document. 16. The case in hand, the trust deed clearly empowers the trustees to sell the trust properties for fulfilling the object of the trust. The application (Annexure P-3) also clearly reflects the object of sale of the land in dispute. 16. The case in hand, the trust deed clearly empowers the trustees to sell the trust properties for fulfilling the object of the trust. The application (Annexure P-3) also clearly reflects the object of sale of the land in dispute. It is clearly mentioned in that application that after selling of the property, from its consideration amount, 10 acres of land will be purchased in rural area for construction of school, college, hospitals etc. despite the Registrar has rejected the application for the reason that the land in question is being used as playground by the students of J.P. Verma College for the last 45-50 years, which does not appear to be proper. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Registrar, Public Trust rejecting the application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 is not sustainable. 17. It was an argument of Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned Counsel for Respondents No. 3 to 6 that the land in question was already transferred in the name of the State in the year 1972. Perusal of the reply of these Respondents to the application filed under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 before the Registrar clearly shows that they have admitted the fact that the subject land is the trust property (paragraph 8 of the reply). Apart from that these Respondents have not produced any document to show that the subject land has been duly transferred to the State Government and in the revenue record also, name of the State has been mutated. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the said argument raised by Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava. 18. It was also argued on behalf of Respondents No. 3 to 6 that the Petitioners No. 2 & 3 are neither trustees under the provisions of the Act of 1951 nor could they have been nominated under the terms of the trust deed. As this question is not the subject matter of the instant petition and as submitted by Mr. Shrivastava a litigation is already pending before the Civil Court in this regard, it would not be necessary to deal with the issue in the instant petition. 19. Further contention of Mr. As this question is not the subject matter of the instant petition and as submitted by Mr. Shrivastava a litigation is already pending before the Civil Court in this regard, it would not be necessary to deal with the issue in the instant petition. 19. Further contention of Mr. Shrivastava was that in this case the order of delegation of powers under Section 34-A of the Act of 1951 has been passed by the Collector through a simple work distribution memo and he alloted the work to the SDO is contrary to the mandate of Section 34-A of the Act of 1951. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was prayed by Mr. Shrivastava that the matter may be remanded back to the Collector i.e. Registrar of public trust to consider the matter afresh. 20. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that before the Registrar, Respondents No. 3 to 6 were made party as Respondents/Objectors. The application under Section 14 of the Act of 1951 was filed on 27.09.2019. Later on, the application was amended. Before the Registrar, Public Trust, these Respondents appeared through their Counsel. The Registrar, during the proceedings, recorded the evidence and collected the reports from Tahsildar and finally passed his order on 05.08.2021. During the entire proceedings, these Respondents have not made any objections before the Registrar with regard to the delegation of power through work distribution memo by the Collector. After passing of the said order also, they kept mum. When the said order is challenged by the Petitioners in the instant petition, then, for the first time, these Respondents raised their objections in this regard and prayed to remand the matter to the Collector. 21. Learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay in Bharti Vidhyapeeth, Pune vs. Ulka Pradeep Adhav, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 4692, observed that the Respondent can not seek relief in the writ proceedings instituted by the Petitioner. Since, the challenge has not been made by the person aggrieved, Court is not inclined to entertain the same. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder: “20. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that respondent Nos. 3 and 3 are the persons who can be construed to be aggrieved in law vis-a-vis the decision of the School Tribunal and not the school or its Headmaster/Headmistress. The relevant paragraph of the above judgment is reproduced hereunder: “20. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that respondent Nos. 3 and 3 are the persons who can be construed to be aggrieved in law vis-a-vis the decision of the School Tribunal and not the school or its Headmaster/Headmistress. Merely filing affidavit by respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 601 and 873 of 2019 supporting the case of the petitioners would not confer locus on the petitioners. It is trite that a respondent cannot seek relief in the writ proceedings instituted by the petitioner. Since the challenge has not been made by the person aggrieved, Court is not inclined to entertain the same.” 22. In case of Jai Singh vs. Secretary, Law and Judicial, ILR (2008) 2 Delhi 1166, the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court observed as under: “16. Learned Law Secretary while disposing of the appeal by the impugned Order dated 9th January, 1978 has observed that in the counter affidavit which was filed in Writ Petition No. 641-D/63, legal representatives of Mr. Govardhan Singh had also asked for possession of the remaining land. I have examined the counter affidavit filed in the said Writ Petition on behalf of the private respondents herein but find that there is no such averment. No prayer was made in the said counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit it is not stated that the impugned Order dated 19.04.1963 to the extent that the applicants therein were refused relief with respect to any land beyond the said 11 bigha and 12 biswas, was bad and illegal. There are no such allegations in the affidavit nor any grounds of challenge were raised. The private respondents in the written submissions have rightly pointed out that prior to the amendment of Code of Civil Procedure in 1976 there was no provision for filing of cross objections by respondents who were not aggrieved by a decree. As observed by the Supreme Court in Banarsi vs. Ramphal, (2003) 9 SCC 606 a party in whose favour a decree stands in entirety is neither required, nor entitled to file cross objections, even if a finding has been given on a particular aspect/issue against the said party. As observed by the Supreme Court in Banarsi vs. Ramphal, (2003) 9 SCC 606 a party in whose favour a decree stands in entirety is neither required, nor entitled to file cross objections, even if a finding has been given on a particular aspect/issue against the said party. Cross objections or a cross appeal is required to be filed where a decree is partly in favour of one party and partly in favour of another. In case Mr. Govardhan Singh was aggrieved by the Order dated 19.04.1963, partly dismissing the appeal, he should have filed a writ petition challenging the said order to that extent. Mr. Govardhan Singh and after his death the private respondents kept quite and accepted the said order. The Order rejecting the appeal in part became final and binding. It was not the intention of the Writ Court to set aside the findings of the Financial Commissioner which Mr. Govardhan Singh had accepted.” 23. I also agree with the above observations made by learned Single Judges of High Court of Bombay and Delhi High Court. Thus, in light of the above observations, in my considered view also, Respondents No. 3 to 6 can not seek any relief in the present writ petition, which is instituted by the Petitioners. 24. From perusal of the documents and photographs annexed with the petition, reply and rejoinder, it appears that the trust property, which is to be sold, is in an open area on the main road. It also appears that in the right portion of the said property, there is a way to go to the college and there is also a parking area for two-wheelers for students of the college. As the college is a P.G. College for Arts and Commerce students, therefore, there can be more than one thousand students and more than fifty faculties and other staff in the college and for all of them sufficient parking space as also a way to go to the college will be required. Before permitting sale of the property, interests of the students, faculties and other staff of the college need to be looked into. Therefore, in the right portion of the property in question, where the way to go to the college and the parking space for two-wheelers exist, sufficient area for the way and for the parking space need to be left. Therefore, in the right portion of the property in question, where the way to go to the college and the parking space for two-wheelers exist, sufficient area for the way and for the parking space need to be left. Hence, in considered view of this Court, in the aforementioned right portion area, it would be appropriate to leave 25 feet wide space with the existing length for way to go to the college and 20 feet wide space with the existing length for parking of vehicles. Therefore, it is directed that the trust shall proceed to implement its decision for sale of the land leaving the aforementioned area for the way and for the parking space subject to fresh valuation of the property as on today. This valuation shall be disclosed to the Collector/Registrar of the Public Trusts, who, in turn, shall facilitate the implementation of the decision of sale of the property to the highest bidder, through public auction inviting nationwide bids. After the sale, the Collector/Registrar of the Public Trusts shall also ensure that the purpose of the sale is fructified within a reasonable period. 25. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.08.2021 passed by Respondent No. 2/Registrar is hereby set aside and the instant writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated in the preceding paragraph. 26. No order as to costs.