CAV 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. 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 07.11.200