ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Raipur by which the Collector has cancelled the entire transaction of land bearing khasra No. 1187/1 area 1.210 acre situated at P.H. No. 106 A, area 1.210 hectare (in short referred to as land) and directed to record the said land in the name of trust/respondent No.6. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner is Cooperative Society registered under the Cooperative Socialites Act, 1960 and has purchased the land in dispute from respondent No. 5 in the year 2006. The petitioner applied for mutation in which respondent No. 4 raised objection mainly contending that the land belongs to public trust and erstwhile manager (Sarvakara) namely Mahant Radhika Das of the trust sold the said land, without obtaining due permission from the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust to one Ramnarayan. Purchaser of the land Ramnararayn has sold the land to Rijumal, as such the entire transaction is void ab initio. The petitioner filed reply to the objection contending that Rijumal applied for mutation before the Tahsildar Raipur in the year 1976 and the objection raised by respondent No.4 was turned down accordingly name of Rijumal was mutated as Bhoomiswami of the land vide order dated 07.01.1976. The respondent No.4 has preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Raipur which has allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.09.1978 and remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar Raipur for conducting an enquiry afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the parties to lead evidence. The Tahsildar, Raipur again decided the case in favour of Rijumal. 3. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 who claims to be public figure has filed a complaint before the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust Raipur on 08.05.2007 mainly contending that the mutation has wrongly been done and without permission from the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust Raipur the sale deed has been executed. The Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 07.11.2007 has set aside the transaction of the land in question. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order has preferred an appeal in Revenue Case No. 1/B-113(4)-2007-08 dated 07.11.2007 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 07.11.2007 passed by the Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 02.12.2008. The petitioner being aggrieved with this order has preferred an appeal in Revenue Case No. 1/B-113(4)-2007-08 dated 07.11.2007 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue has set aside the order dated 07.11.2007 passed by the Collector, Raipur vide its order dated 02.12.2008. Being aggrieved with this order, the respondent No. 4 has preferred the writ petition which was registered as WP (227) 486/2009. The respondent No. 3 has also filed the writ petition challenging this order by filing WP (227) No. 617/2019. This Court vide its order dated 08.08.2011 has allowed the petition and passed the following order which is as under:- 9. It is settled law, invalidity of a sale deed and its cancellation on the ground that it was voidable could only be determined and adjudicated upon by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, if a sale deed is void abinitio, then certainly it can be ignored. 10. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Collector would reveal; the same has been passed against deceased persons i.e. late Ramnarayan, Rambishal and late Smt. Reza without impleading their legal representatives and without affording them opportunity of hearing. Further, Smt. Manju Krishnani has not been impleaded without her full name. The Board of revenue has also committed the same mistake. The order has been passed by impleading late Ramnarayan, late Rambishal and late Smt. Reza and without impleading their legal representatives as respondents. 11. Indisputably, no order can be passed against deceased persons without impleading their legal representatives in their place and without affording them opportunity of hearing. 12. Considering every aspect of the matter and the fact that both the authorities below have passed the orders against deceased persons, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the orders dated 07.11.2007 and 02.12.2008 passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue to be and a re hereby set aside. 4. On demand, the Collector, Raipur issued notice to the legal representatives of deceased Rijumal but they remained absent therefore, served notice through paper publication but no legal representative appeared in the matter and the Collector, Raipur after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/1) which is being challenged in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector, without giving proper notice has passed the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Collector, without giving proper notice has passed the impugned order. It has also been contended that respondent No. 3 who claims to be a public figure is making illegal demand to the petitioner and made a false complaint on 08.05.2007, as such initiation of proceedings on a false complaint is bad in law. The petitioner to demonstrate this fact has drawn attention of this Court towards the order sheets recorded by the office of the Collector from 09.05.2007 to 07.11.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the registered sale deed dated 25.05.2006 cannot be held to be null and void by the Collector while exercising power of Registrar Public Trust. He would further submit that the Mahant Radhika Das had sold the property of Math while working as Sarwakar. He would further submit that the property bearing Khasra No. 1187 admeasuring 2.98 acres was sold to Ramnarayan and Ors on 12.05.1958 who have sold this land to Rijumal on 15.11.1967 as such the land was recorded in the name of Rijumal and the objection raised by the Sarwakara was rejected on 07.01.1976. Subsequently the land was diverted, no objection was raised by respondent No. 4 or any Sarwakaras and thereafter the petitioner has purchased the said land from respondent No. 5 and would submit that the land purchased by the petitioner’s society from late Rijumal through registered sale deed cannot be nullified by the Collector. It can be questioned by filing duly constituted Civil suit before the competent Civil Court who has only jurisdiction, thus the order passed by the Collector is non-est and deserves to be set aside by this Court. 6. The State has filed their return raising objection about maintainability of the petition contending that the petitioner has alternate efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the appropriate forum available but without exhausting the same the writ petition has been filed and would support the order passed by the Collector on 24.07.2012. The respondent No. 6 would support the order passed by the Collector, Raipur and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 7. Respondent No. 3 has filed their return supporting the order passed by the Collector and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. The respondent No. 6 would support the order passed by the Collector, Raipur and would pray for dismissal of the petition. 7. Respondent No. 3 has filed their return supporting the order passed by the Collector and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. One shri Ramchandra Ji Swami, Nagri Das Mandir Trust through its president has filed an application for impleadment as respondent No.6 which was considered and allowed as mentioned in the order sheet by this Court. 8. This Court vide order dated 22.06.2023 has directed the State to requisite the record of the Collector/ Registrar Public Trust relating to present dispute. In pursuance of direction the State has produced the record of the case wherein copy of the order dated 08.06.1963 passed by the Registrar Public Trust, report dated 03.04.1963 of Sub Divisional Officer, order sheet of proceeding of Tahsildar has been produced. The record also contained order dated 07.01.1976 passed by Tahsildar Raipur recording the name of applicant Rijumal and rejecting objection raised by the respondent No. 4, order dated 24.09.1978 by which the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed and matter is remitted back to the learned Tahsildar for deciding the matter on merit after giving an opportunity to the parties in mutation proceeding. The record also contained the order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the Special Officer diverted land by which the name of petitioner society has been recorded and order dated 07.11.2007 by which the Collector and Registrar Public Trust has cancelled the entire transaction of the land in question and directed for recording the land in the name of trust/ Respondent No. 6. 9. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner trust was registered in the year 1955 as public trust. The land in question was registered in the name of Shri Ram Chandra Ji Swami (Naagri Das) trust through Servarakar/Manager Mahant Radhika Das. He would further submit that on 12/05/1958, Sarvarakar Radhika Das sold out the land belonging to trust to one Ramnarayan and Ramvishal S/o Domar, with Smt. Reja W/o Domar. The purchasers were also successful in getting the land mutated in their names. He would further submit that on 12/05/1958, Sarvarakar Radhika Das sold out the land belonging to trust to one Ramnarayan and Ramvishal S/o Domar, with Smt. Reja W/o Domar. The purchasers were also successful in getting the land mutated in their names. After receiving the complaints in the year 1963, the Collector vide its order dated 08/06/1963 has not only declared the said Registry to be null and void, but also cancelled the mutation and ordered for restoration of land in the name of trust. The Collector on the basis of report dated 03.04.1963 submitted by Sub Divisional Officer has passed the order. The operative part of the report is reproduced below:- Para No. 4- Under Section 14(1) of the MP Trust Act, 1951 no sale of any immovable property shall be valid without the previous sanctioned of the Registrar. In the present case, referred to in para-2 sale of immovable property of the trust have been done without permission of the Registrar and hence, they may please be declared void for Section 4(1) of M.P. Public Trust Act. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From above factual matrix, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Collector is legal, justified and liable to be interfered by this Court or not. 12. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From above factual matrix, the point emerged for determination by this Court is whether the order dated 24.07.2012 passed by the Collector is legal, justified and liable to be interfered by this Court or not. 12. For determination of the point emerged in this case, it is expedient for this Court to extract the relevant provisions of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act 1951, Section 2 (2) of the Act which are as under:- Section 2(2) Math:-" means an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty it is to engage himself in imparting religious instructions or rendering spiritual service to a body of disciples or who exercises or claims to exercise hardship over such a body and includes places of religious worship or instruction which are appurtenant to the institution; Section 2(4) "public trust" means an express or constructive trust for a public, religious or charitable purposes and includes a temple, a math, a mosque, a church, a wakf or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed for a religious or charitable purpose; Section 2(5) "Register" means a register maintained under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act; Section 2(6) "Registrar" means the Registrar of Public Trusts Section 10 Intimation to the [Collector] about the trust property situated in his district. – (1) Where any part of the trust property of a public trust is situate within the limits of more than one district, the Registrar shall forward a copy of the entries recorded in the register in respect of that public trust to' all [Collectors] within whose jurisdiction any part of the trust property is situate. (2) On receipt of any copy of entries under sub-section (1), the [Collector] shall cause the particulars in such entries to be entered in a register prescribed in that behalf. Section 14:- Previous sanction of Registrar, in cases of sale, etc., of property belonging to a public trust. (2) On receipt of any copy of entries under sub-section (1), the [Collector] shall cause the particulars in such entries to be entered in a register prescribed in that behalf. 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 of gift of any immovable property; and (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 his opinion, be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. 13. Rule 9 of Public Trust Rule 1962 which reads as under:- Applications under Section 14 for sanction of alienation. – (1) Every application for sanction of an alienation shall contain information inter alia on the following points,- (i) whether the instrument of trust contains any directions as to alienation of immovable property; (ii) what is the necessity for the proposed alienation; (iii) how the proposed alienation is in the interest of the public trust; and (iv) in the case of a proposed lease, the terms of the past leases, if any. Such application shall be accompanied by a valuation report of an expert. (2) The Registrar, before according or refusing sanction, may make such inquiry as he may deem necessary. (3) In according sanction, the Registrar may impose such conditions, as he may deem fit, if he is of the opinion that the grant of sanction to the proposed alienation without imposing such conditions will be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. (3) In according sanction, the Registrar may impose such conditions, as he may deem fit, if he is of the opinion that the grant of sanction to the proposed alienation without imposing such conditions will be prejudicial to the interests of the public trust. 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 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 the 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 provision of the trust document. 14. 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 provision of the trust document. 14. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that no sanction before sale of land in question was taken by then Sarwakara and the Collector vide its order dated 08.06.1963 has already cancelled the sale deed which was executed by Mahant Radhika Das in his capacity as Sarwakara has already set aside and directed for recording the said property in the name of Trust, land bearing khasra No. 1187. This order was never challenged by the subsequent purchaser and thus attained finality. 15. Section 14 provides permission from the Registrar is mandatory in nature, this issue has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, MHOW vs The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts & anr. In Civil Appeal No. 490 of 2022 decided on 28.01.2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 27 has considered the aspect of sanction of the Registrar as under :- 27. Public control of charities (whether social or religious) has been recognized in our country for over a century. In the context of religious endowments, such public control is essential, for the simple reason that in its absence, there is likelihood of diversion of monies and properties accumulated through public donation and gifts. The role of the designated state official (commissioner, or registrar, etc.) is to ensure that accounts are properly maintained; monies are expended in accordance with the aims and objects of the endowments; the proper rituals are conducted, etc. Such regulation does not mean that the state is allowed to appropriate monies which rightly belong to the endowment. In the case of public charities and trusts, slightly different considerations prevail. The aim of public control is to ensure that the trust is administered efficiently and smoothly. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken. In the specific context of alienation of properties, depending on the nature of the oversight, the state’s interest is to ensure that valuable assets of public trusts are not frittered away. The state interest is that far, and no more; it cannot mean that the state can dictate what decisions can or cannot be taken. In the specific context of alienation of properties, depending on the nature of the oversight, the state’s interest is to ensure that valuable assets of public trusts are not frittered away. It is for this reason, that provisions like Section 36 clearly enunciate a principle that the Commissioner can impose such conditions as may be appropriate. However, the statute in the present case (the M.P. Public Trusts Act) does not contain such a power to impose conditions; the only considerations that weigh with the officer (Registrar) are the stipulations in law, or in the instrument of public interest. Other than these considerations, the principle of autonomy and democratic decision-making cannot be undermined. Any organization which is self-governed, cannot be subjected to overarching state control. As long as its decisions are well informed, and grounded on relevant considerations, the interests of the trust are those defined by its members. Any measure of public control enacted through express stipulations in law, should not be expanded to such an extent that the right to freedom of association, under Article 19 (1) (c), is reduced to an empty husk, bereft of meaningful exercise of choice. 16. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the requirement of Rule 9 of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Rule 1962 has not been complied with by the petitioner’s society or the Sarwakara who has sold the property, as such the Registrar has rightly passed the order on 08.06.1963 which was never subject to challenge. Even otherwise, though the name of the society was mutated in the revenue record but it does not give any right to the petitioner’s society on the strength of recording of the names in the revenue record; as revenue record does not confer any title over the land in question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (dead) through Legal Representative vs Arthur Import and Export Company and Others 2019(3) SCC 191 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 6. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. (See Sawarni (Smt.) vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ). 7. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition placed reliance on the aforementioned law laid down by this Court and we find no good ground to differ with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. It is just and proper calling for no interference. 17. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 13146/2021 decided on 06.09.2021 has held as under:- 6. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter. 6.1 In the case of Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner, (2007) 6 SCC 186 , it is observed and held by this Court that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose”, i.e., payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. It is further observed that so far as the title of the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court. Similar view has been expressed in the cases of Suman Verma v. Union of India, (2004) 12 SCC 58 ; Faqruddin v. Tajuddin (2008) 8 SCC 12 ; Rajinder Singh v. State of J&K, (2008) 9 SCC 368 ; Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, (2015) 16 SCC 689 ; T. Ravi v. B. Chinna Narasimha, (2017) 7 SCC 342 ; Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar v. Arthur Import & Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 ; Prahlad Pradhan v. Sonu Kumhar, (2019) 10 SCC 259 ; and Ajit Kaur v. Darshan Singh, (2019) 13 SCC 70 . 18. Further submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the sale deed cannot be cancelled by the Registrar as it has to be declared null and void by the competent Civil Court only and same is misconceived and deserves to be rejected as the land in question was registered with the Registrar of Public Trust and Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction over the trust property. The sale deed was executed in violation of Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act and the rule made therein, therefore, the Registrar has only power to cancel the entire transaction. Even other wise, from bare perusal of Annexure P/1, the Registrar has declared the transaction as null and void and directed for recording of the property in the name of the trust. Cancellation of sale deed is consequence to declare the transaction as null and void, therefore, learned Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to trust property. The issue regarding jurisdiction of Civil Court viz a viz jurisidcion of other forum which has been constituted in pursuance of any particular act has come up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Shri Ram and Another vs. 1st Addl. Distt. Judge and Others 2001(3) SCC 24 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 7. Distt. Judge and Others 2001(3) SCC 24 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 7. On analysis of the decisions cited above, we are of the opinion that where a recorded tenure holder having a prima facie title and in possession files suit in the civil court for cancellation of sale deed having obtained on the ground of fraud or impersonation cannot be directed to file a suit for declaration in the revenue court reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession. 19. Again the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamla Prasad and Ors. vs. Kishna Kant Pathak and Ors. 2007(4) SCC 213 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 13. On second question also, in our view, Courts below were right in coming to the conclusion that legality or otherwise of insertion of names of purchasers in Record of Rights and deletion of name of the plaintiff from such record can only be decided by Revenue Court since the names of the purchasers had already been entered into. Only Revenue Court can record a finding whether such an action was in accordance with law or not and it cannot be decided by a Civil Court. 14. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly relied upon a decision of this Court in Shri Ram & Anr. v. Ist Addl. Distt. Judge & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 24 . In Shri Ram, A, the original owner of the land sold it to B by a registered sale deed and also delivered possession and the name of the purchaser was entered into Revenue Records after mutation. According to the plaintiff, sale deed was forged and was liable to be cancelled. Distt. Judge & Ors., (2001) 3 SCC 24 . In Shri Ram, A, the original owner of the land sold it to B by a registered sale deed and also delivered possession and the name of the purchaser was entered into Revenue Records after mutation. According to the plaintiff, sale deed was forged and was liable to be cancelled. In the light of the above fact, this Court held that it was only a Civil Court which could entertain, try and decide such suit. The Court, after considering relevant case law on the point, held that where a recorded tenure holder having a title and in possession of property files a suit in Civil Court for cancellation of sale deed obtained by fraud or impersonation could not be directed to institute such suit for declaration in Revenue Court, the reason being that in such a case, prima facie, the title of the recorded tenure holder is not under cloud. He does not require declaration of his title to the land. 15. The Court, however, proceeded to observe: "The position would be different where a person not being a recorded tenure holder seeks cancellation of sale deed by filing a suit in the civil court on the ground of fraud or impersonation. There necessarily the plaintiff is required to seek a declaration of his title and, therefore, he may be directed to approach the revenue court, as the sale deed being void has to be ignored for giving him relief for declaration and possession". 16. The instant case is covered by the above observations. The lower Appellate Court has expressly stated that the name of the plaintiff had been deleted from Record of Rights and the names of purchasers had been entered. The said fact had been brought on record by the contesting defendants and it was stated that the plaintiff himself appeared as a witness before the Mutation Court, admitted execution of the sale deed, receipt of sale consideration and the factum of putting vendees into possession of the property purchased by them. It was also stated that the records revealed that the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into Record of Rights and the name of plaintiff was deleted. 17. It was also stated that the records revealed that the names of contesting defendants had been mutated into Record of Rights and the name of plaintiff was deleted. 17. In the light of the above facts, in our opinion, the Courts below were wholly right in reaching the conclusion that such a suit could be entertained only by a Revenue Court and Civil Court had no jurisdiction. The High Court by reversing those orders had committed an error of law and of jurisdiction which deserves interference by this Court. 20. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that no proper opportunity was given to the legal representative of the deceased Rijumal is being considered. 21. From bare perusal of the proceedings drawn by the Collector, it is quite vivid, that Registrar has passed the impugned order Annexure P/1 after giving opportunity of hearing to the legal representative of the deceased and the society has also appeared before the Collector when the matter was fixed and also filed written argument on 09.07.2012. The record of the case would further submit that on 16.01.2012 the Collector has issued notice through paper publication fixing the case on 13.02.2012. On behalf of Manju Krishnani and others, learned counsel has entered appearance and raised objection. The counsel engaged by them has entered appearance on 12.03.2012, 16.04.2012, 04.05.2012, 12.06.2012, 18.06.2012, 25.06.2012 and thereafter on 09.07.2012 on that date counsel for Manju Krishnani has filed written argument thereafter impugned order dated 24.07.2012 was passed which clearly demonstrates that ample opportunity was given to the parties thereafter the impugned order was passed. It is also apparent that Manju Krishnani has not challenged the order passed by the Collector, Raipur raising her grievances, as such also the petitioner’s society is estopped from raising such plea. Thus, submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that no proper opportunity was not granted to the society as well as Manju Krishnani who is legal representative of late Rijumal is rejected. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. No order as to the cost. 22. The interim order passed by this Court on 24.06.2013 is vacated.