the Sub-Divisional Officer in the manner adopted in the present case. It is further submitted that the impugned mutation was not a mere ministerial alteration of the revenue record, but was founded upon a disputed question concerning the management and representation of the public trust and its properties. Such a dispute could not have been determined in mutation proceedings, particularly without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties. The dispute regarding the management of the public trust, appointment of receiver and appointment of Sarwrakar/manager was already pending before the competent forum pursuant to the reference order dated 14.06.2007, and the proceedings before the District Court as well as the earlier proceedings before this Court were within the knowledge of respondent No. 4. Therefore, the revenue authorities ought not to have intervened in the matter by altering the revenue records in respect of the trust properties while the substantive dispute concerning their management remained pending. It is argued that the Board of Revenue failed to consider these material aspects, including the finality attached to the Tehsildar's order dated 13.10.2010, the absence of notice, the impermissible exercise of suo motu power by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the pendency of proceedings concerning the public trust, and consequently erred in affirming the orders passed by the revenue authorities. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned order of the Board of Revenue, as well as the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, deserve to be set aside.
