Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.
Notice on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 5 has been accepted by the Office of Assistant Solicitor General of India.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate and Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Kazim Ibrahim, learned Central Government Counsel.
The writ petition has been filed seeking direction to opposite parties not to create any hindrance in the construction over the plot at Gata No. 112Mi, Plot No. 61 and 62 Survey No. 251 and 253.
This is the second round in which the petitioner has come forward to seek aforesaid relief. Earlier writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of learned counsel for petitioner.
As per the facts borne out from the record, the land in question pertains to the property of a trust, namely, Maharshi Ved Vigyan Vishwa Vidya Peetham, a registered charitable trust. It appears that one late Ved Prakash Tiwari trustee of the said trust had executed a general power of attorney in favour of petitioner, Shiv Chandra Sinha, copy of the general power of attorney is on record. Perusal of the same indicates that the said power of attorney was allowed to sell the property in question in favour of intended purchaser. The said general power of attorney was valid for a period of one year from the date of execution i.e., 9.1.2012. As per averments made in the writ petition, petitioner is in possession over the land in question. The petitioner and purchaser of the said land wanted to construct their houses, but the opposite parties interfered and did allow them to raise constructions. It is also mentioned that in the revenue records, the land in question has been recorded in the name of petitioner and the said purchaser.
We are shocked to note that how the trust property can in such a manner be sold by the petitioner on the basis of alleged power of attorney executed allegedly by a trustee of the trust. There is nothing on record to indicate that there was any resolution of the trust to dispose of its property.
It is also shocking to note that how the land in question was in possession of the petitioner and how the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue records. The petitioner has no right or title over the land in question. He cannot hold the possession of the said land. Moreover, he has no right to sell or purchase the said land on the basis of alleged power of attorney which has already expired.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
[Rakesh Srivastava, J.] [Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.] Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Santosh/-