MALTI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs:

(2.) Perusal of the record shows that the notification was issued under Section 4 under the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') with respect to the disputed land, immediately thereafter, the petitioner purchased the disputed land on 12.2.1993 from the original tenure holder. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 8.7.1993 and the award was made under Section 11 of the 1894 Act on 8.9.1997. Now the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has purchased the land after the issuing of the notification issue under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for direction to respondents to determine the compensation of the land-in-question of the petitioner under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the 2013 Act').

(3.) Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers-of-Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the done to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with an interest, it is revocable. The done in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject, of course, to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the done.