2025:UHC:9711 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2979 of 2015 29th October, 2025 Sahendra Singh and others …………Petitioners Versus Board of Revenue Uttarakhand Dehradun and others ………….Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Devendra Pant, S.C. for the State. Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandra, Advocate for the respondent no.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 10.07.2015, passed by the Board of Revenue, Dehradun in Revision No.94 of 2014-15, Sahendra Singh and others Vs. Collector, Haridwar and others and order dated 04.09.2014 and 28.01.2013, passed by learned Collector, Haridar in Case No.11 of 2013-14, under Sections 157-A of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act, 1950, Sahendra Singh and others Vs. Sitaram. 2. The facts in brief are that the grandfather of the petitioners was a recorded land lord of Khata No.87 Khasra No.873 measuring 1.4088 hectares. The grandfather according to his need disposed-off half share of the aforesaid property vide registered sale deed dated 21.07.2008 in favour of respondent no.4 and in respect of remaining half share of the land the grandfather of the petitioner executed a will dated 11.03.2011 in favour of the petitioners and also executed a revocable power of 1 2025:UHC:9711 attorney dated 23.11.2009 in favour of his son i.e., father of the petitioners. The grandfather died on 08.08.2012. On the basis of the power of attorney, the father of the petitioners executed a sale deed dated 03.01.2011 in favour of respondent no.4 and thereafter mutated his name in the revenue records and to sell or transfer the said property made an application before learned Collector, Haridwar under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 1950 who granted such permission vide order dated 03.01.2011. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that their father i.e., the power of attorney holder was a drunkard and without any consideration and without the permission of their grandfather i.e., the actual owner of the property in dispute sold the property to respondent no.4 who very cleverly mutated his name by making an application in the court of learned Tehsildar, Roorkee. He further submits that on account of the undisputed will in favour of the petitioners the sale deed dated 03.01.2011 is null and void. The petitioners also filed a review before the court of learned Tehsildar against the order of mutation in favour of respondent no.4. During the pendency of the review the grandfather of the petitioners died and the petitioners made an application for substitution in the matter on 20.02.2013. During the pendency of this review the respondent no.4 very cleverly took permission from the learned Collector to sale the property under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 which was granted to him vide order dated 18.01.2013. Against the said order the petitioners moved an application for recalling/setting aside of the permission granted to respondent no.4. The aforesaid application was rejected by the learned Collector vide 2 2025:UHC:9711 order dated 04.09.2014. Against the said orders the petitioners approached before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue illegally upheld the order of the learned Collector. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners after the death of their grandfather are the owners of the land in dispute as the will dated 11.03.2011 was still in force and the learned court below have passed illegal order without appreciating the relevant provisions of law. 5. The learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 relying upon their counter affidavit submits that the power of attorney holder validly executed a sale deed of the remaining half of the property by sale deed dated 03.01.2011 in favour of respondent no.4 and on the basis of the said sale deed learned Tehsildar, Roorkee, legally passed a mutation order in favour of respondent no.4 and the said property was sold by respondent no.4 to Smt. Seema Tandon after validly obtaining permission from learned Collector, under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 and as the sale was made after complying with the relevant provisions the Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the revision of the petitioners. 6. The counsel for the respondent no.4 relying upon his counter affidavit submits that the grandfather of the petitioners had himself sold the first half of the property to him vide sale deed dated 21.07.2008 and the remaining half of the property was sold to him by the power of attorney holder vide sale deed dated 03.01.2011 and he after taking permission from learned Collector, under Section 157-A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950 has exercised his legal rights to dispose of his property to 3 2025:UHC:9711 Smt. Seema Tandon. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is quite clear that the power of attorney dated 23.11.2009 was never revoked by the grandfather of the petitioners and the father of the petitioners who was the power of attorney holder on the basis of power of attorney sold the said property to respondent no.4 vide sale deed dated 03.01.2011. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner’s that they are the legal heirs and owners of the property in dispute on the basis of will dated 11.03.2011 is utterly misconceived and against the settled provision of law as it is a trite law that a will can only be validly effective or come into force after the date of the death of testator unless it is revoked. It is an admitted fact that the testator died on 08.08.2012 and the power of attorney holder had already on the basis of the said power of attorney sold the property on 03.01.2011 therefore the will did not stand. In the above circumstances the learned courts of Tehsildar, Collector, Board of Revenue did no illegality in passing the impugned orders. 8. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.10.2025 SK 4