S.C. MATHUR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 31.08.2013 passed by Board of Revenue, whereby the revision filed by the respondent State has been allowed, as well as the order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, on 23.12.2006, petitioner No. 1, exercising his rights under the Power of Attorney executed in his favour, executed a sale -deed in favour of petitioner No. 2. Subsequently, on a reference dated 21.01.2007 made by the Sub Registrar; Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, initiated proceedings under Sections 166 and 167 of the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and, without providing opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, passed impugned order dated 14.05.2008 directing that the property purchased by petitioner No. 2 be vested in the State. Thereafter, petitioners filed a revision against order dated 14.05.2008 before the court of Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, which was registered as Revision No. 47 of 2007. The said revision was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2012. Thereafter, petitioners filed a review application for review of the order dated 27.07.2012, which was allowed on 28.09.2012 and the revision filed by the petitioners was also allowed in part by setting aside the order dated 14.05.2008 and directing the Assistant Collector to decide the case afresh on merits after hearing both the parties. Feeling aggrieved thereby, State of Uttarakhand preferred a revision, which was registered as Revision No. 50 of 2012, before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2013 by which the order dated 28.09.2012 was set aside. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) BY a perusal of the above -quoted Sub -Section (2) of Section 152 -A, it reveals that the Power of Attorney, which was executed on or before 12.9.2003 shall be valid if the sale deed, on the basis of such Power of Attorney, is executed on or before 31.03.2004, irrespective of any time limit provided in such Power of Attorney. Admittedly, the sale deed in the present case was executed on 23.12.2006, i.e., after 31.03.2004, and, before executing the said sale deed, no extension of time was sought from the Collector, who has the power to extend the time for reasons to be recorded in writing.